Dataset Information

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Mailed outreach promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a stool blood test kit may increase participation, but magnitude and consistency of benefit of this intervention strategy is uncertain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mailed outreach offering stool tests to usual care, clinic-based screening offers on CRC screening uptake in the USA. We performed a systematic literature search of five databases for RCTs of mailed outreach from January 1980 through June 2017. Primary outcome was screening completion, summarized using random-effects meta-analysis as pooled differences in proportion completing the screening and relative risk of achieving screening compared to control. Subgroup analyses by test type offered-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), the presence of telephone reminders, and the presence of predominant underserved/minority population within study were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Seven RCTs which enrolled 12,501 subjects were included (n?=?5703 assigned mailed outreach and n?=?6798 usual care). Mailed outreach resulted in a 28% absolute (95% CI 25-30%; I2?=?47%) and a 2.8-fold relative (RR 2.65, 95% CI 2.03-3.45; I2?=?92%) increase in screening completion compared to usual care, with a number needed to invite estimated to be 3.6. Similar outcomes were observed across subgroups. Overall body of evidence was at moderate quality. Mailed outreach offering a gFOBT or FIT is associated with a large and consistent increase in CRC screening completion and should be considered for more widespread implementation for improving screening rates nationwide.

SUBMITTER: Jager M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6706307 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Jager Mark M Demb Josh J Asghar Ali A Selby Kevin K Mello Evelyn Marquez EM Heskett Karen M KM Lieberman Alicea J AJ Geng Zhuo Z Bharti Balambal B Singh Siddharth S Gupta Samir S

Digestive diseases and sciences 20190326 9

Mailed outreach promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a stool blood test kit may increase participation, but magnitude and consistency of benefit of this intervention strategy is uncertain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mailed outreach offering stool tests to usual care, clinic-based screening offers on CRC screening uptake in the USA. We performed a systematic literature search of five databases for RCTs ...[more]

PMID: 30915656

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAlthough screening decreases incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Health-promoting financial incentives may increase uptake of cancer screening.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of CRC screening.Data sourcesPubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 31, 2020. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms were used to identify published studies on the topic. The search strategy identified 835 studies.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) were selected that involved adults older than 50 years who were eligible for CRC screening, who received either various forms of financial incentives along with mailed outreach or no financial incentives but mailed outreach and reminders alone, and who reported screening completion by using recommended tests at different time points. Observational or nonrandomized studies and a few RCTs were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Data were abstracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analysis and metaregression, and quality of evidence was appraised.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months of receiving the intervention.ResultsA total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives). Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (≤$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18).Conclusions and relevanceAdding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted.

Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer (CRC) screening saves lives, but participation rates are low among underserved populations. Knowledge on effective approaches for screening the underserved, including best test type to offer, is limited.ObjectiveTo determine (1) if organized mailed outreach boosts CRC screening compared with usual care and (2) if FIT is superior to colonoscopy outreach for CRC screening participation in an underserved population.Design, setting, and participantsWe identified uninsured patients, not up to date with CRC screening, age 54 to 64 years, served by the John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth and Tarrant County, Texas, a safety net health system.InterventionsPatients were assigned randomly to 1 of 3 groups. One group was assigned to fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach, consisting of mailed invitation to use and return an enclosed no-cost FIT (n = 1593). A second was assigned to colonoscopy outreach, consisting of mailed invitation to schedule a no-cost colonoscopy (n = 479). The third group was assigned to usual care, consisting of opportunistic primary care visit–based screening (n = 3898). In addition, FIT and colonoscopy outreach groups received telephone follow-up to promote test completion.Main outcome measuresScreening participation in any CRC test within 1 year after randomization.ResultsMean patient age was 59 years; 64% of patients were women. The sample was 41% white, 24% black, 29% Hispanic, and 7% other race/ethnicity. Screening participation was significantly higher for both FIT (40.7%) and colonoscopy outreach (24.6%) than for usual care (12.1%) (P < .001 for both comparisons with usual care). Screening was significantly higher for FIT than for colonoscopy outreach (P < .001). In stratified analyses, screening was higher for FIT and colonoscopy outreach than for usual care, and higher for FIT than for colonoscopy outreach among whites, blacks, and Hispanics (P < .005 for all comparisons). Rates of CRC identification and advanced adenoma detection were 0.4% and 0.8% for FIT outreach, 0.4% and 1.3% for colonoscopy outreach, and 0.2% and 0.4% for usual care, respectively (P < .05 for colonoscopy vs usual care advanced adenoma comparison; P > .05 for all other comparisons). Eleven of 60 patients with abnormal FIT results did not complete colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS AND REVELANCE: Among underserved patients whose CRC screening was not up to date, mailed outreach invitations resulted in markedly higher CRC screening compared with usual care. Outreach was more effective with FIT than with colonoscopy invitation.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191411.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015).InterventionsElectronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process.Main outcomes and measuresEffectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT.ResultsTwenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder.Conclusions and relevanceAn EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

Project description:Background & aimsSurveillance of patients with cirrhosis increases early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and prolongs survival. However, its effectiveness is limited by underuse, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach strategies, with and without patient navigation, in increasing the numbers of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surveillance for HCC in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort.MethodsWe performed a prospective study of patients with documented or suspected cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 through March 2016. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to groups that received mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination (n = 600), mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination and patient navigation (barrier assessment and motivational education for patients who declined screening; n = 600), or usual care (visit-based screening; n = 600). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received up to 3 reminder telephone calls. The primary outcome was completion of abdominal imaging within 6 months of randomization.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar among groups. Cirrhosis was documented, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes, for 79.6% of patients, and suspected, based on noninvasive markers of fibrosis, for 20.4%. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proportions of patients who received the mailed invitation and navigation (47.2%) or the mailed invitation alone (44.5%) underwent HCC screening than patients who received usual care (24.3%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). However, screening rates did not differ significantly between outreach the outreach groups (P = .25). The effects of the outreach program were consistent in all subgroups, including Caucasian vs non-Caucasian race, documented vs suspected cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A vs B cirrhosis, and receipt of gastroenterology care.ConclusionsIn a prospective study, we found outreach strategies to double the percentage of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound screening for HCC. However, adding patient navigation to telephone reminders provided no significant additional benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02312817.

Dataset Information

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets