The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: a pilot controlled trial.

Carmen L Lewis, Alison T Brenner, Jennifer M Griffith, Michael P Pignone
Author Information
  1. Carmen L Lewis: Division of General Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Carmen_Lewis@med.unc.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice.
METHODS: We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened.
RESULTS: In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94.
CONCLUSION: A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening.

References

  1. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005 Nov 28;5:36 [PMID: 16313676]
  2. Lancet. 1996 Nov 30;348(9040):1467-71 [PMID: 8942774]
  3. Arch Intern Med. 1989 Aug;149(8):1866-72 [PMID: 2764657]
  4. Prev Med. 2004 Apr;38(4):403-11 [PMID: 15020173]
  5. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 2;141(9):683-92 [PMID: 15520425]
  6. Prev Med. 1999 Nov;29(5):374-82 [PMID: 10564629]
  7. BMJ. 1992 Mar 14;304(6828):687-91 [PMID: 1571644]
  8. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Dec;20(12):1097-101 [PMID: 16423097]
  9. Ann Intern Med. 2002 May 7;136(9):641-51 [PMID: 11992299]
  10. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997 Oct 1;89(19):1406-22 [PMID: 9326910]
  11. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006 Mar 24;55(11):308-11 [PMID: 16557215]
  12. Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Sep-Oct;3(5):213-20 [PMID: 11185326]
  13. Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;101(5 Suppl):1229-38 [PMID: 15316909]
  14. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Dec 1;23(34):8877-83 [PMID: 16314648]
  15. N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1603-7 [PMID: 11096167]
  16. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Nov 21;133(10):761-9 [PMID: 11085838]
  17. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 May 19;96(10):770-80 [PMID: 15150305]
  18. Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jul 16;137(2):132-41 [PMID: 12118972]
  19. Lancet. 1996 Nov 30;348(9040):1472-7 [PMID: 8942775]

Grants

  1. K07 CA104128/NCI NIH HHS
  2. K07 CA104128-02/NCI NIH HHS
  3. K07 CA104128-03/NCI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0screeningcoloncancerpatientsinterventionpatientdecisionaidmulti-modalincludedaccesstestspracticetestcostscreenedmailingremindersystemchangesallowingdirectprimarycarecontrolledtrialmailedcompletionperadditionalgroupuptakeBACKGROUND:soughtdeterminewhetherschedulingstandingorderseffectiveefficientmeanspromotingMETHODS:conductedcomparingproportionreceivedwaitlistcontrolsonesitepackageletterphysicianinstructionsobtainingwithoutofficevisitdirectlyMajoroutcomesRESULTS:15%20/137versus4%4/100controldifference11%95%CI3%18%p=001estimated$94CONCLUSION:scheduleincreasedsubsetwithinsingleacademicAlthoughlowalsomodestsuggestingmethodviableapproacheffectintervention:pilot

Similar Articles

Cited By