Electronic patient messages to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.

Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont St, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 11.46). 12/2010; 171(7):636-41. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.467
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality, yet effective screening tests are often underused. Electronic patient messages and personalized risk assessments delivered via an electronic personal health record could increase screening rates.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 14 ambulatory health centers involving 1103 patients ranging in age from 50 to 75 years with an active electronic personal health record who were overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single electronic message highlighting overdue screening status with a link to a Web-based tool to assess their personal risk of colorectal cancer. The outcomes included colorectal cancer screening rates at 1 and 4 months.
Screening rates were higher at 1 month for patients who received electronic messages than for those who did not (8.3% vs 0.2%, P < .001), but this difference was no longer significant at 4 months (15.8% vs 13.1%, P = .18). Of 552 patients randomized to receive the intervention, 296 (54%) viewed the message, and 47 (9%) used the Web-based risk assessment tool. Among 296 intervention patients who viewed the electronic message, risk tool users were more likely than nonusers to request screening examinations (17% vs 4%, P = .04) and to be screened (30% vs 15%, P = .06). One-fifth of patients (19%) using the risk assessment tool were estimated to have an above-average risk for colorectal cancer.
Electronic messages to patients produce an initial increase in colorectal cancer screening rates, but this effect is not sustained over time. Identifier: NCT01032746.

  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication. To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions. Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search. Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening. Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 2:CD001865. · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Electronic, or web-based, patient portals can improve patient satisfaction, engagement and health outcomes and are becoming more prevalent with the advent of meaningful use incentives. However, adoption rates are low, particularly among vulnerable patient populations, such as those patients who are home-bound with multiple comorbidities. Little is known about how these patients view patient portals or their barriers to using them.Objective To identify barriers to and facilitators of using My HealtheVet (MHV), the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patient portal, among Veterans using home-based primary care services.DesignQualitative study using in-depth semi-structured interviews. We conducted a content analysis informed by grounded theory.ParticipantsFourteen Veterans receiving home-based primary care, surrogates of two of these Veterans, and three home-based primary care (HBPC) staff members.Key ResultsWe identified five themes related to the use of MHV: limited knowledge; satisfaction with current HBPC care; limited computer and Internet access; desire to learn more about MHV and its potential use; and value of surrogates acting as intermediaries between Veterans and MHV.Conclusions Despite their limited knowledge of MHV and computer access, home-bound Veterans are interested in accessing MHV and using it as an additional point of care. Surrogates are also potential users of MHV on behalf of these Veterans and may have different barriers to and benefits from use.
    Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 05/2014; · 1.80 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 20, 2014

Alan M Zaslavsky