Dataset Information

Outreach and Inreach Organized Service Screening Programs for Colorectal Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Outreach (i.e., to invite those who do not use, or who under use screening services) and inreach (i.e., to invite an existing population who have already accessed the medical system) approaches may influence people to increase their use of screening test; however, whether their outcomes would be equivalent remains unclear.

Methods

A total of 3,363,896 subjects, 50-69 years of age, participated in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program using biennial fecal immunochemical tests; 34.5% participated during 2004-2009 when the outreach approach alone was used, and 65.5% participated from 2010-2013 when outreach was integrated with an inreach approach. We compared the outcomes of the two approaches in delivery of screening services.

Results

Coverage rates increased from 21.4% to 36.9% and the positivity rate increased from 4.0% to 7.9%, while referral for confirmatory diagnostic examinations declined from 80.0% to 53.3%. The first period detected CRC in 0.20% of subjects screened, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 6.1%, and the second detected CRC in 0.34% of subjects, with a PPV of 8.0%. After adjusting for confounders, differences were observed in the PPV for CRC (adjusted relative risk, 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-1.60), cancer detection rate (1.20; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), and interval cancer rate (0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.80). When we focused on the comparison between two approaches during the same study period of 2010-2013, the positivity rate of fecal testing (8.2% vs. 7.6%) and the PPV for CRC detection remained higher (1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12) in subjects who were recruited from the inreach approach.

Conclusions

Outcomes of screening were equivalent or better after integration of outreach and inreach approaches.

Impact

The results will encourage makers of health-care policy to adopt the integration approach to deliver screening services.

SUBMITTER: Chou CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4865222 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outreach and Inreach Organized Service Screening Programs for Colorectal Cancer.

Chou Chu-Kuang CK Chen Sam Li-Sheng SL Yen Amy Ming-Fang AM Chiu Sherry Yueh-Hsia SY Fann Jean Ching-Yuan JC Chiu Han-Mo HM Chuang Shu-Lin SL Chiang Tsung-Hsien TH Wu Ming-Shiang MS Wu Chien-Yuan CY Chia Shu-Li SL Lee Yi-Chia YC Chiou Shu-Ti ST Chen Hsiu-Hsi HH

PloS one 20160512 5

<h4>Background</h4>Outreach (i.e., to invite those who do not use, or who under use screening services) and inreach (i.e., to invite an existing population who have already accessed the medical system) approaches may influence people to increase their use of screening test; however, whether their outcomes would be equivalent remains unclear.<h4>Methods</h4>A total of 3,363,896 subjects, 50-69 years of age, participated in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program using biennial fecal immunoche ...[more]

PMID: 27171410

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective:Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants:Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions:Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n?=?2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n?=?2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n?=?1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results:All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P?<?.001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P?<?.001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P?<?.08 and P?<?.13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P?<?.001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance:Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Chinese Americans have low colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. Evidence-based interventions to increase CRC screening in this population are lacking. This study aims to compare the efficacy of two interventions in increasing CRC screening among Chinese Americans. DESIGN:Cluster randomized comparative trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:From 2010 to 2014, a community-academic team conducted this study in San Francisco, CA with Chinese Americans aged 50-75 years who spoke English, Cantonese, or Mandarin. INTERVENTION:Lay health worker (LHW) intervention plus in-language brochure (LHW+Print) versus brochure (Print). LHWs in the LHW+Print arm were trained to teach participants about CRC in two small group sessions and two telephone calls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Change in self-reports of ever having had CRC screening and being up to date for CRC screening from baseline to 6 months post-intervention. Statistical analysis was performed from 2014 to 2015. RESULTS:This study recruited 58 LHWs, who in turn recruited 725 participants. The average age of the participants was 62.2 years, with 81.1% women and 99.4% foreign born. Knowledge increase was significant (p<0.002) for nine measures in the LHW+Print group and six in the Print group. Both groups had increases in having ever been screened for CRC (LHW+Print, 73.9%-88.3%, p<0.0001; Print, 72.3%-79.5%, p=0.0003) and being up to date for CRC screening (LHW+Print, 60.0%-78.1%, p<0.0001; Print, 58.1%-64.1%, p=0.0003). In multivariable analyses, the intervention OR for LHW+Print versus Print was 1.94 (95% CI=1.34, 2.79) for ever screening and 2.02 (95% CI=1.40, 2.90) for being up to date. CONCLUSIONS:Both in-language print materials and LHW outreach plus print materials increased CRC screening among Chinese Americans. The combination of LHW+Print was more effective than Print alone. These findings can guide clinicians and policymakers in choosing appropriate interventions to increase CRC screening among Chinese American immigrants. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00947206.

Project description:ImportanceColonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options.ObjectiveTo investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening.InterventionsEligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test.ResultsIn total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThere was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

Dataset Information

Outreach and Inreach Organized Service Screening Programs for Colorectal Cancer.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Impact

Publications

Outreach and Inreach Organized Service Screening Programs for Colorectal Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets