Article

Automated Phone and Mail Population Outreach to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening

Clinical Prevention Services, Population Care and Prevention Services, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.26). 07/2012; 18(7):370-8.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

To evaluate a population outreach program to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) among average-risk insured men and women.
In 2008, 58,440 Kaiser Permanente Colorado members unscreened for CRC received an interactive voice response (IVR) call followed by mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT), or colonoscopy if requested. We used a quasi-experimental design with staged implementation, in which a random subset of eligible members was selected each week to receive the intervention. This design allowed the entire group to ultimately receive the intervention.
Survival models summarized time-specific comparisons of screening behaviors for members who received immediate outreach compared with those who had not yet received it.
A total of 26,003 (45%) of the unscreened population completed screening, predominately due to the mailed kits. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the outreach effect on screening completion was 4.08 (95% confidence interval: 3.93-4.25) and adjusted HR was 3.75 (3.60-3.91). Lower levels of screening were seen in African Americans (HR 0.83; 0.77-0.90) and Hispanics (HR 0.84; 0.80-0.88) compared with whites, and in smokers (HR 0.77; 0.74-0.80) compared with nonsmokers. The outreach had greater impact among those without a primary care (HR 4.5 vs 3.0, P <.0001) or specialty care (HR 5.2 vs 3.5, P <.0001) visit compared with those with 1 or more visits.
The rate of colorectal cancer screening in members after mailed FIT with IVR was almost 4 times higher than usual care, particularly in those without an office visit. Targeted approaches are needed for groups at risk for not screening.

0 Followers
 · 
5 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients. To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors. All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance. The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit. Rates of cancer screening at 1 year. Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 185) or usual care (n = 181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p = 0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p = 0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different. A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.
    No preview · Article · Jul 2013 · Journal of General Internal Medicine
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Importance Colorectal 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.Objective To 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 Participants We 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.Interventions Patients 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 Measures Screening participation in any CRC test within 1 year after randomization.Results Mean 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 Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01191411
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2013 · JAMA Internal Medicine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. Pragmatic randomized trial. Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2013 · Journal of General Internal Medicine
Show more