Dataset Information

A2-2: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (SOS): A 2-Year Randomized Trial of an Automated Intervention with Stepped Increases of Support to Increase Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening

ABSTRACT:

Background/Aims

Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals. Our objective was to determine whether interventions using electronic health records, automated mailings, and stepped increases in support increased being current for CRC testing over 2 years.

Methods

Setting and participants: SOS was a four-arm parallel design randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00697047). Patients aged 50–73 at baseline (n = 4674) not current for CRC screening and with no life-threatening illnesses from 21 primary care medical centers were randomized. Interventions: Usual care (UC), Automated mailed (Automated), Automated plus medical assistant telephone assistance (Assisted), or both Automated and Assisted interventions plus nurse navigation until testing was completed or declined (Navigated). Interventions were repeated in year 2. Measurements: Primary outcomes were the proportion current for screening in both years, defined as completion of a colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy in year 1, or fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in year 1 and either FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy in year 2.

Results

Compared to UC, intervention patients were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years of the study, with incremental increases by intervention intensity (UC 26.5% vs. Automated 50.7%, Assisted 57.7%, or Navigated 64.4% P <.001). Automated interventions increased CRC screening in all patient subgroups compared to UC. The higher-intensity Assisted and Navigated interventions were less effective in patients age ?65, and African American/Blacks and those reporting mixed race. Two-year intervention cost estimates were $57,000 for Automated, $67,000 for Assisted, and $79,000 for Navigated. Inclusion of CRC test costs produced total intervention costs of $314,000, $342,000, and $390,000 for three arms respectively, compared to $339,000 for UC costs for CRC tests alone.

Conclusions

A low-cost stepped intervention that leveraged automated data and centralized processes led to twice as many people being current for CRC screening over 2 years. The rapid growth of electronic health records provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.

SUBMITTER: Green B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3788472 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScreening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals.ObjectiveTo determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years.Design4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047)Setting21 primary care medical centers.Patients4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening.InterventionUsual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2.MeasurementsThe proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2).ResultsCompared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]).LimitationParticipants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability.ConclusionCompared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.

Project description:Importance:Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective:To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants:This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions:Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results:A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance:Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

Project description:BackgroundScreening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years.DesignRandomized trial.SettingIntegrated health care system in Washington state.ParticipantsBetween August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50-74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490).InterventionsYears 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5-9.Main measuresTime in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time.Key resultsCompared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001).ConclusionsAn outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years.Trial registrationSystems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047.