Automated telephone calls improved completion of fecal occult blood testing

A pilot study for using fecal immunochemical testing to increase colorectal cancer screening in Appalachia, 2008-2009

INTRODUCTION

The Appalachian region of the United States has disproportionately high colorectal cancer (CRC) death rates and low screening rates. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess acceptability of a take-home fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and the effect of follow-up telephone counseling for increasing CRC screening in rural Appalachia.

METHODS

We used a prospective, single-group, multiple-site design, with centralized laboratory reports of screening adherence and baseline and 3-month questionnaires. Successive patients, aged 50 or older, at average CRC risk and due for screening were enrolled during a routine visit to 3 primary care practices in rural Appalachian Pennsylvania and received a free take-home FIT and educational brochure. Those who had not returned the test 2 weeks later were referred for telephone counseling.

RESULTS

Of 232 patients approached, 200 (86.2%) agreed to participate. Of these, 145 (72.5%) completed the FIT as recommended (adherent) and 55 (27.5%) were referred for telephone counseling (nonadherent), of whom 23 (41.8%) became adherent after 1 to 2 counseling sessions, an 11.5 percentage-point increase in screening after telephone counseling and 84% FIT adherence overall. Lack of CRC-related knowledge and perceived CRC risk were the screening barriers most highly associated with nonadherence. Although not statistically significant, the rate of conversion to screening adherence was higher among participants who received telephone counseling compared to an answering machine reminder.

CONCLUSION

If confirmed in future randomized trials, provider-recommended take-home FIT and follow-up telephone counseling may be methods to increase CRC screening in Appalachia.

The Need for Office Systems to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening

Patients generally access colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through primary care physicians. National guidelines recommend CRC screening for adults beginning at age 50, yet one-third of Americans are not up to date. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was administered to family physicians from 16 practices in a Midwestern state who attended an information session for a randomized study to improve CRC screening. The questionnaire assessed CRC screening practices, knowledge of CRC screening guidelines, and office strategies for improving screening. Results: Of 131 health care providers, 85 (65%) completed the questionnaire. Two-thirds were aware of the CRC screening guidelines; 91% knew that the follow-up interval for screening depends on the test chosen. Twenty-five percent incorrectly stated that a single-sample in-office fecal occult blood test is an acceptable screening test. Only 8% had a written policy regarding CRC screening; 18% had offices that used chart reminders; and 32% had charts organized to easily identify patient screening status. Regarding perceptions, those who agreed that they encourage their office staff to participate in screening estimated that they offer screening to more patients than those who disagreed (82.8% vs 70.2%, P < .0001); in addition, those who agreed with and tried to follow the guidelines estimated that they offer screening to more patients than those who disagreed (77.4% vs 60.5%, P = .004). Conclusion: Although physicians were knowledgeable about CRC screening guidelines, 25% mistakenly believed that single-sample in-office fecal testing was appropriate. There was a striking lack of office systems for identifying eligible patients and facilitating CRC screening.

Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income and minority populations. The purpose of this study was to determine whether providing patients with screening information, activating them to ask for a screening test, and telephone barriers counseling improves CRC screening rates compared with providing screening information only.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to CRC screening information plus patient activation and barriers counseling (n = 138) or CRC screening information (n = 132). Barriers counseling was attempted among activated patients if screening was not completed after one month. CRC screening test completion was determined by medical record review at two months after the medical visit. Logistic regression was used to determine whether activated patients were more likely to complete CRC screening, after adjustment for confounding factors (e.g., demographic characteristics and CRC knowledge).

RESULTS

Patients were African American (72.2%), female (63.7%), had annual household incomes less than $20,000 (60.7%), no health insurance (57.0%), and limited health literacy skills (53.7%). In adjusted analyses, more patients randomized to the activation group completed a screening test (19.6% vs. 9.9%; OR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.14-5.56; P = 0.020). In addition, more activated patients reported discussing screening with their provider (54.4% vs. 27.5%, OR = 3.29, 95% CI: 1.95-5.56; P < 0.001) and had more screening tests ordered (39.1% vs. 17.6%; OR = 3.40, 95% CI: 1.88-6.15; P < 0.001) compared with those in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Patient activation increased CRC screening rates among low-income minority patients.

IMPACT

Innovative strategies are still needed to increase CRC screening discussions, motivate providers to recommend screening to patients, as well as assist patients to complete ordered screening tests.

Screening for colorectal cancer: possible improvements by risk assessment evaluation?

Emerging results indicate that screening improves survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Therefore, screening programs are already implemented or are being considered for implementation in Asia, Europe and North America. At present, a great variety of screening methods are available including colono- and sigmoidoscopy, CT- and MR-colonography, capsule endoscopy, DNA and occult blood in feces, and so on. The pros and cons of the various tests, including economic issues, are debated. Although a plethora of evaluated and validated tests even with high specificities and reasonable sensitivities are available, an international consensus on screening procedures is still not established. The rather limited compliance in present screening procedures is a significant drawback. Furthermore, some of the procedures are costly and, therefore, selection methods for these procedures are needed. Current research into improvements of screening for colorectal cancer includes blood-based biological markers, such as proteins, DNA and RNA in combination with various demographically and clinically parameters into a "risk assessment evaluation" (RAE) test. It is assumed that such a test may lead to higher acceptance among the screening populations, and thereby improve the compliances. Furthermore, the involvement of the media, including social media, may add even more individuals to the screening programs. Implementation of validated RAE and progressively improved screening methods may reform the cost/benefit of screening procedures for colorectal cancer. Therefore, results of present research, validating RAE tests, are awaited with interest.

Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants

BACKGROUND

Screening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) morbidity and mortality, yet remains underutilized. Screening breakdowns arise from lack of uptake and failure to follow-up after a positive screening test.

OBJECTIVES

Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up (SOS) is a randomized trial designed to increase: (1) CRC screening and (2) follow-up of positive screening tests. The Chronic Care Model and the Preventive Health Model inform study design.

METHODS

The setting is a large nonprofit healthcare organization. In part-1 study, patients age 50-75 due for CRC screening are randomized to one of 4 study conditions. Arm 1 receives usual care. Arm 2 receives automated support (mailed information about screening choices and fecal occult blood tests (FOBT)). Arm 3 receives automated and assisted support (a medical assistant telephone call). Arm 4 receives automated, assisted, and care management support (a registered nurse provides behavioral activation and coordination of care). In part-2, study patients with a positive FOBT or adenomas on flexible sigmoidoscopy are randomized to receive either usual care or nurse care management. Primary outcomes are: 1) the proportion with CRC screening, 2) the proportion with a complete diagnostic evaluation after a positive screening test.

RESULTS

We sent recruitment letters to 15,414 patients and 4675 were randomized. Randomly assigned treatment groups were similar in age, sex, race, education, self-reported health, and CRC screening history.

CONCLUSIONS

We will determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of stepped increases in systems of support to increase CRC screening and follow-up after a positive screening test over 2years.