A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mehta SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6768589 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach.
Mehta Shivan J SJ Khan Tanya T Guerra Carmen C Reitz Catherine C McAuliffe Timothy T Volpp Kevin G KG Asch David A DA Doubeni Chyke A CA
The American journal of gastroenterology 20181201 12
<h4>Objectives</h4>METHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgro ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRoutine screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality, but screening rates fall below national targets and are particularly low in underserved populations.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of a single text message outreach to serial text messaging and mailed fecal home test kits on colorectal cancer screening rates.DesignA two-armed randomized clinical trial.ParticipantsAn urban community health center in Philadelphia. Adults aged 50-74 who were due for colorectal cancer screening had at least one visit to the practice in the previously year, and had a cell phone number recorded.InterventionsParticipants were randomized (1:1 ratio). Individuals in the control arm were sent a simple text message reminder as per usual practice. Those in the intervention arm were sent a pre-alert text message offering the options to opt-out of receiving a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit, followed by up to three behaviorally informed text message reminders.Main measuresThe primary outcome was participation in colorectal cancer screening at 12 weeks. The secondary outcome was the FIT kit return rate at 12 weeks.Key resultsFour hundred forty participants were included. The mean age was 57.4 years (SD ± 6.1). 63.4% were women, 87.7% were Black, 19.1% were uninsured, and 49.6% were Medicaid beneficiaries. At 12 weeks, there was an absolute 17.3 percentage point increase in colorectal cancer screening in the intervention arm (19.6%), compared to the control arm (2.3%, p < 0.001). There was an absolute 17.7 percentage point increase in FIT kit return in the intervention arm (19.1%) compared to the control arm (1.4%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsSerial text messaging with opt-out mailed FIT kit outreach can substantially improve colorectal cancer screening rates in an underserved population.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03479645 ).
| S-EPMC8298623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This is a randomized controlled pilot study aimed at testing different outreach strategies (opt-in versus opt-out) to increase colorectal cancer screening through completion of mailed home fecal immunohistochemical testing (FIT).
| 2227183 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains underused, especially in safety-net systems. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness, costs, and cost-effectiveness of organized outreach using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) compared with usual care.MethodsPatients age 50-75 years eligible for CRC screening from eight participating primary care safety-net clinics were randomly assigned to outreach intervention with usual care vs usual care alone. The intervention included a mailed postcard and call, followed by a mailed FIT kit, and a reminder phone call if the FIT kit was not returned. The primary outcome was screening participation at 1 year and a microcosting analysis of the outreach activities with embedded long-term cost-effectiveness of outreach. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsA total of 5386 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 5434 to usual care. FIT screening was statistically significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (57.9% vs 37.4%, P < .001; difference = 20.5%, 95% confidence interval = 18.6% to 22.4%). In the intervention group, FIT completion rate was higher in patients who had previously completed a FIT vs those who had not (71.9% vs 35.7%, P < .001). There was evidence of effect modification of the intervention by language, and clinic. Outreach cost approximately $23 per patient and $112 per additional patient screened. Projecting long-term outcomes, outreach was estimated to cost $9200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs usual care.ConclusionPopulation-based management with organized FIT outreach statistically significantly increased CRC screening and was cost-effective in a safety-net system. The sustainability of the program and any impact of economies of scale remain to be determined.
| S-EPMC7017601 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat is the effect of default test offers--opt-in, opt-out, and active choice--on the likelihood of acceptance of an HIV test among patients receiving care in an emergency department?MethodsThis was a randomized clinical trial conducted in the emergency department of an urban teaching hospital and regional trauma center. Patients aged 13-64 years were randomized to opt-in, opt-out, and active choice HIV test offers. The primary outcome was HIV test acceptance percentage. The Denver Risk Score was used to categorize patients as being at low, intermediate, or high risk of HIV infection.Study answer and limitations38.0% (611/1607) of patients in the opt-in testing group accepted an HIV test, compared with 51.3% (815/1628) in the active choice arm (difference 13.3%, 95% confidence interval 9.8% to 16.7%) and 65.9% (1031/1565) in the opt-out arm (difference 27.9%, 24.4% to 31.3%). Compared with active choice testing, opt-out testing led to a 14.6 (11.1 to 18.1) percentage point increase in test acceptance. Patients identified as being at intermediate and high risk were more likely to accept testing than were those at low risk in all arms (difference 6.4% (3.4% to 9.3%) for intermediate and 8.3% (3.3% to 13.4%) for high risk). The opt-out effect was significantly smaller among those reporting high risk behaviors, but the active choice effect did not significantly vary by level of reported risk behavior. Patients consented to inclusion in the study after being offered an HIV test, and inclusion varied slightly by treatment assignment. The study took place at a single county hospital in a city that is somewhat unique with respect to HIV testing; although the test acceptance percentages themselves might vary, a different pattern for opt-in versus active choice versus opt-out test schemes would not be expected.What this paper addsActive choice is a distinct test regimen, with test acceptance patterns that may best approximate patients' true preferences. Opt-out regimens can substantially increase HIV testing, and opt-in schemes may reduce testing, compared with active choice testing.Funding, competing interests, data sharingThis study was supported by grant NIA 1RC4AG039078 from the National Institute on Aging. The full dataset is available from the corresponding author. Consent for data sharing was not obtained, but the data are anonymized and risk of identification is low.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01377857.
| S-EPMC4718971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMailed 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.ObjectiveCompare 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 participantsPragmatic 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.InterventionsRandom 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 measuresPrimary 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).ResultsAll 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 relevanceAmong 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.
| S-EPMC5648645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Efforts to boost colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in underserved populations have been limited by effectiveness and scalability. We evaluate the impact of adding a lottery-based financial incentive to a text messaging program that asks patients to opt-in to receive mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). This is a two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial at a community health center in Southwest Philadelphia from April to July 2017. We included CRC screening-eligible patients between ages 50-74 years who had a mobile phone, active health insurance, and at least one visit to the clinic in the past 12 months. Patients received a text message about CRC screening with the opportunity to opt-in to receive mailed FIT. They were randomized 1:1 to the following: (1) text messaging outreach alone (text), or (2) text messaging with lottery for a 1-in-5 chance of winning $100 after FIT completion (text + lottery). The primary outcome was the percentage of patients completing the mailed FIT within 3 months of initial outreach. 281 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The FIT completion rate was 12.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-17.5%) in the text message arm and 12.1% (95% CI, 6.7%-17.5%) in the lottery arm, with no statistical difference between arms. The majority of post-intervention interview respondents found text messaging to be acceptable and convenient. Opt-in text messaging is a feasible option to promote the uptake of mailed FIT screening, but the addition of a lottery-based incentive did not improve completion rates. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03072095).
| S-EPMC7251946 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6724166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProvider recommendation is a predictor of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.PurposeTo compare the effects of two clinic-based interventions on patient-provider discussions about CRC screening.DesignTwo-group RCT with data collected at baseline and 1 week post-intervention.Setting/participantsAfrican-American patients that were non-adherent to CRC screening recommendations (n=693) with a primary care visit between 2008 and 2010 in one of 11 urban primary care clinics.InterventionParticipants received either a computer-delivered tailored CRC screening intervention or a nontailored informational brochure about CRC screening immediately prior to their primary care visit.Main outcome measuresBetween-group differences in odds of having had a CRC screening discussion about a colon test, with and without adjusting for demographic, clinic, health literacy, health belief, and social support variables, were examined as predictors of a CRC screening discussion using logistic regression. Intervention effects on CRC screening test order by PCPs were examined using logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2011 and 2012.ResultsCompared to the brochure group, greater proportions of those in the computer-delivered tailored intervention group reported having had a discussion with their provider about CRC screening (63% vs 48%, OR=1.81, p<0.001). Predictors of a discussion about CRC screening included computer group participation, younger age, reason for visit, being unmarried, colonoscopy self-efficacy, and family member/friend recommendation (all p-values <0.05).ConclusionsThe computer-delivered tailored intervention was more effective than a nontailored brochure at stimulating patient-provider discussions about CRC screening. Those who received the computer-delivered intervention also were more likely to have a CRC screening test (fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy) ordered by their PCP.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT00672828.
| S-EPMC3601582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care.Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization.Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy.Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process.
| S-EPMC4724227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsClinical guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening suggest use of either stool-based tests or colonoscopy - modalities that differ in recommended screening intervals, adherence, and costs. We know little about the long-term cost differences in population-health outreach strategies to promote these strategies.MethodsWe conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare 2 mailed outreach strategies to increase CRC screening from a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial: mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits vs invitations to complete a screening colonoscopy. We built a 10-year Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to account for differences in screening intervals, adherence, and costs.ResultsMailed FIT kits had a lower 10-year average per-person cost of screening relative to colonoscopy invitations ($1139 vs $1725) but with 10.89 fewer months of compliance and 60 fewer advanced neoplasia detected (37 advanced adenomas and 23 CRC). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for colonoscopy invitations compared with mailed FIT kits were $55.23, $15.84, and $25.48 per additional covered month, advanced adenoma, and CRC, respectively. Although FIT was the preferred strategy at low willingness-to-pay thresholds, the 2 strategies were equal at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $41.31 per covered month gained.ConclusionMailed FIT or colonoscopy invitations are both options to improve CRC screening completion and advanced neoplasia detection, and the choice of outreach strategy may differ by a health system's willingness-to-pay threshold. Mailed FIT kits are less expensive than colonoscopy invitations but result in fewer months of screening compliance and advanced neoplasia detected.
| S-EPMC9357235 | biostudies-literature