A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach

Behavioral Interventions to Improve Breast Cancer Screening Outreach: Two Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Despite public health efforts, breast cancer screening rates remain below national goals.

Objective

To evaluate whether bulk ordering, text messaging, and clinician endorsement increase breast cancer screening rates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two concurrent, pragmatic, randomized clinical trials, each with a 2-by-2 factorial design, were conducted between October 25, 2021, and April 25, 2022, in 2 primary care regions of an academic health system. The trials included women aged 40 to 74 years with at least 1 primary care visit in the past 2 years who were eligible for breast cancer screening.

Interventions

Patients in trial A were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a signed bulk order for mammogram or no order; in a factorial design, patients were concurrently randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive or not receive text message reminders. Patients in trial B were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a message signed by their primary care clinician (clinician endorsement) or from the organization (standard messaging); in a factorial design, patients were concurrently randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive or not receive text message reminders.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who completed a screening mammogram within 3 months.

Results

Among 24 632 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 60.4 (7.5) years. In trial A, at 3 months, 15.4% (95% CI, 14.6%-16.1%) of patients in the bulk order arm and 12.7% (95% CI, 12.1%-13.4%) in the no order arm completed a mammogram, showing a significant increase (absolute difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-3.6%; P < .001). In the text messaging comparison arms, 15.1% (95% CI, 14.3%-15.8%) of patients receiving a text message completed a mammogram compared with 13.0% (95% CI, 12.4%-13.7%) of those in the no text messaging arm, a significant increase (absolute difference of 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.0%-3.0%; P < .001). In trial B, at 3 months, 12.5% (95% CI, 11.3%-13.7%) of patients in the clinician endorsement arm completed a mammogram compared with 11.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-12.5%) of those in the standard messaging arm, which was not significant (absolute difference, 1.1%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 2.7%; P = .18). In the text messaging comparison arms, 13.2% (95% CI, 12.0%-14.4%) of patients receiving a text message completed a mammogram compared with 10.7% (95% CI, 9.7%-11.8%) of those in the no text messaging arm, a significant increase (absolute difference, 2.5%; 95% CI, 0.8%-4.0%; P = .003).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings show that text messaging women after initial breast cancer screening outreach via either electronic portal or mailings, as well as bulk ordering with or without text messaging, can increase mammogram completion rates.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05089903.

Increasing Postpartum Primary Care Engagement through Default Scheduling and Tailored Messaging: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Over 30% of pregnant people have at least one chronic medical condition, and nearly 20% develop gestational diabetes or pregnancy-related hypertension, increasing the risk of future chronic disease. While these individuals are often monitored closely during pregnancy, they face significant barriers when transitioning to primary care following delivery, due in part to a lack of health care support for this transition.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of an intervention designed to improve postpartum primary care engagement by reducing patient administrative burden and information gaps.

Design

Individual-level randomized controlled trial conducted from November 3, 2022 to October 11, 2023.

Setting

One hospital-based and five community-based outpatient obstetric clinics affiliated with a large academic medical center.

Participants

Participants included English- and Spanish-speaking pregnant or recently postpartum adults with obesity, anxiety, depression, diabetes mellitus, chronic hypertension, gestational diabetes, or pregnancy-related hypertension, and a primary care practitioner (PCP) listed in their electronic health record (EHR).

Intervention

A behavioral economics-informed intervention bundle, including default scheduling of postpartum PCP appointments and tailored messages.

Main Outcome

Completion of a PCP visit for routine or chronic condition care within 4 months of delivery.

Results

360 patients were randomized (Control: N=176, Intervention: N=184). Individuals had mean (SD) age 34.1 (4.9) years and median gestational age of 36.3 weeks (interquartile range (IQR) 34.0-38.6 weeks) at enrollment. The distribution of self-reported races was 7.4% Asian, 6.8% Black, 15.0% multiple races or "Other," and 68.6% White. Most (75.8%) participants had anxiety or depression, 15.9% had a chronic or pregnancy-related hypertensive disorder, 19.8% had pre-existing or gestational diabetes, and 40.4% had a pre-pregnancy BMI ≥30 kg/m2. Medicaid was the primary payer for 21.9% of patients. PCP visit completion within 4 months occurred in 22.0% in the control group and 40.0% in the intervention group. In regression models accounting for randomization strata, the intervention increased PCP visit completion by 18.7 percentage points (95%CI 10.7-29.1). Intervention participants also had fewer postpartum readmissions (1.7 vs. 5.8%) and increased receipt of the following services by a PCP: blood pressure screening (42.8 vs. 28.3%), weight assessment (42.8 vs. 27.7%), and depression screening (32.8 vs. 16.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized trial of pregnant individuals with or at risk for chronic health conditions, default PCP visit scheduling, tailored messages, and reminders substantially improved postpartum primary care engagement. The current lack of support for postpartum transitions to primary care is a missed opportunity to improve recently pregnant individual's short- and long-term health. Reducing patient administrative burdens may represent relatively low-resource, high-impact approaches to improving postpartum health and wellbeing.

Trial Registration

NCT05543265.

Barriers to Community-Based Eradication of Helicobacter pylori Infection

Helicobacter pylori (HP) is a causative agent in gastric cancer (GC).1 In the United States, HP is more prevalent in racial and ethnic minorities, including African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and immigrants, the same groups that are more likely to develop and die from GC.2 Although screening for HP is not presently performed in the United States, there are plausible benefits to doing so, because HP is considered a group 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization, and its link to GC parallels that of human papilloma virus and cervical cancer.1 HP eradication as a means of preventing GC also fulfils the Wilson and Jungner criteria for a successful screening program, and literature has consistently demonstrated that HP eradication reduces GC risk and death from GC.3 In fact, in countries with a high burden of GC, HP eradication is considered primary prevention for GC. As such, targeted HP testing in the United States may reduce GC burden in high-risk groups.4 We evaluate the results of community-based HP testing in an at-risk, underserved population.

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

A randomized trial of mailed outreach with behavioral economic interventions to improve liver cancer surveillance

BACKGROUND

Surveillance rates for HCC remain limited in patients with cirrhosis. We evaluated whether opt-out mailed outreach increased uptake with or without a $20 unconditional incentive.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in an urban academic health system including adult patients with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis, at least 1 visit to a specialty practice in the past 2 years and no surveillance in the last 7 months. Patients were randomized in a 1:2:2 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) a mailed letter with a signed order for an ultrasound, or (3) a mailed letter with an order and a $20 unconditional incentive. The main outcome was the proportion with completion of ultrasound within 6 months.

RESULTS

Among the 562 patients included, the mean age was 62.1 (SD 11.1); 56.8% were male, 51.1% had Medicare, and 40.6% were Black. At 6 months, 27.6% (95% CI: 19.5-35.7) completed ultrasound in the Usual care arm, 54.5% (95% CI: 47.9-61.0) in the Letter + Order arm, and 54.1% (95% CI: 47.5-60.6) in the Letter + Order + Incentive arm. There was a significant increase in the Letter + Order arm compared to Usual care (absolute difference of 26.9%; 95% CI: 16.5-37.3; p<0.001), but no significant increase in the Letter + Order + Incentive arm compared to Letter + Order (absolute difference of -0.4; 95% CI: -9.7 to 8.8; p=0.93).

CONCLUSIONS

There was an increase in HCC surveillance from mailed outreach with opt-out framing and a signed order slip, but no increase in response to the financial incentive.

Automated Opt-Out vs Opt-In Patient Outreach Strategies for Breast Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Optimal strategies for population-based outreach for breast cancer screening remain unknown.

Objective

To evaluate the effect on breast cancer screening of an opt-out automatic mammography referral strategy compared with an opt-in automated telephone message strategy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2022 to January 2023 at a single Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. Participants were female veterans aged 45 to 75 years who were eligible for breast cancer screening and enrolled in VA primary care.

Intervention

Veterans were randomized 1:1 to receive either an automatic mammography referral (opt-out arm) or an automated telephone call with an option for mammography referral (opt-in arm).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was completed mammography 100 days after outreach. Secondary outcomes were scheduled or completed mammography by 100 days after outreach and referrals canceled if mammography was not scheduled within 90 days. Both intention-to-treat analyses and a restricted analysis were conducted. The restricted analysis excluded veterans who were unable to be reached by telephone (eg, a nonworking number) or who were found to be ineligible after randomization (eg, medical record documentation of recent mammography).

Results

Of 883 veterans due for mammography (mean [SD] age, 59.13 [8.24] years; 656 [74.3%] had received prior mammography), 442 were randomized to the opt-in group and 441 to the opt-out group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of completed mammography at 100 days between the opt-out and opt-in groups (67 [15.2%] vs 66 [14.9%]; P = .90) or the secondary outcome of completed or scheduled mammography (84 [19%] vs 106 [24.0%]; P = .07). A higher number of referrals were canceled in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (104 [23.6%] vs 24 [5.4%]; P < .001). The restricted analysis demonstrated similar results except more veterans completed or scheduled mammography within 100 days in the opt-out group compared with the opt-in group (102 of 388 [26.3%] vs 80 of 415 [19.3%]; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, an opt-out population-based breast cancer screening outreach approach compared with an opt-in approach did not result in a significant difference in mammography completion but did lead to substantially more canceled mammography referrals, increasing staff burden.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05313737.

Secondary analysis of electronic opt-out consent in pragmatic research: A study design method to diversify clinical trials?

We conducted a multi-center pragmatic trial of a low-risk intervention focused on medication adherence using an opt-out consent approach, where patients could opt out by letter and then electronically. We focus on the cohort after opt-out by mail. Here, we describe that 8% of patients opted out electronically, resulting in a 92% participation rate. Patients who self-identify as Black or Hispanic were less likely to opt out in the study, and half the study cohort was female. This demographic data is useful for planning future trials employing this approach.

The Effects of Opt-out vs Opt-in Tobacco Treatment on Engagement, Cessation, and Costs: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Tobacco use causes 7 million deaths per year; most national guidelines require people who use tobacco to opt in to care by affirming they are willing to quit. Use of medications and counseling is low even in advanced economy countries.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of opt-out care vs opt-in care for people who use tobacco.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In Changing the Default (CTD), a Bayesian adaptive population-based randomization trial, eligible patients were randomized into study groups, treated according to group assignment, and debriefed and consented for participation at 1-month follow-up. A total of 1000 adult patients were treated at a tertiary care hospital in Kansas City. Patients were randomized from September 2016 to September 2020; final follow-up was in March 2021.

Interventions

At bedside, counselors screened for eligibility, conducted baseline assessment, randomized patients to study group, and provided opt-out care or opt-in care. Counselors and medical staff provided opt-out patients with inpatient nicotine replacement therapy, prescriptions for postdischarge medications, a 2-week medication starter kit, treatment planning, and 4 outpatient counseling calls. Patients could opt out of any or all elements of care. Opt-in patients willing to quit were offered each element of treatment described previously. Opt-in patients who were unwilling to quit received motivational counseling.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcomes were biochemically verified abstinence and treatment uptake at 1 month after randomization.

Results

Of a total of 1000 eligible adult patients who were randomized, most consented and enrolled (270 [78%] of opt-in patients; 469 [73%] of opt-out patients). Adaptive randomization assigned 345 (64%) to the opt-out group and 645 (36%) to the opt-in group. The mean (SD) age at enrollment was 51.70 (14.56) for opt-out patients and 51.21 (14.80) for opt-out patients. Of 270 opt-in patients, 123 (45.56%) were female, and of 469 opt-out patients, 226 (48.19%) were female. Verified quit rates for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group were 22% vs 16% at month 1 and 19% vs 18% at 6 months. The Bayesian posterior probability that opt-out care was better than opt-in care was 0.97 at 1 month and 0.59 at 6 months. Treatment use for the opt-out group vs the opt-in group was 60% vs 34% for postdischarge cessation medication (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0), and 89% vs 37% for completing at least 1 postdischarge counseling call (bayesian posterior probability of 1.0). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $678.60, representing the cost of each additional quit in the opt-out group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, opt-out care doubled treatment engagement and increased quit attempts, while enhancing patients' sense of agency and alliance with practitioners. Stronger and longer treatment could increase cessation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02721082.

Is opt-out enrolment acceptable for low-risk digital health services?

Introduction Digital health programmes not only complement existing services, but have the potential to reach populations that existing services are not reaching. Many of these services require people to opt-in to receive them, which presents significant barriers to access. An alternative is to make low-risk digital services opt-out, ensuring appropriate members of the target audience are signed up for a service unless they select to not receive it. Aim This study aimed to investigate how changing enrolment in a low-risk digital health programme from opt-in to opt-out would impact on enrolment and dropout rates. Methods This study involved the retrospective analysis of registration data from txtpēpi, a maternal and child health text-message programme. System-recorded data from enrolments during a 12-month period were obtained. In the first 6 months, users had to opt-in to the service (Period 1), but in the following 6 months, an opt-out process was implemented (Period 2). Results There was a 77% increase in enrolments in Period 2 (n  = 113) compared to Period 1 (n  = 64) and no significant change in the proportion of enrolments of Māori between time periods (P  = 0.508). There was no significant difference in withdrawal rates between time periods at either 2 weeks (5% vs 6%, P  = 0.676) or 1 month (9% vs 9%, P  = 0.907). Discussion This study has shown switching from an opt-in to an opt-out option resulted in an increase in enrolments in an mHealth programme, but had no impact on withdrawals. This indicates that employing opt-out enrolment for low-risk evidence-based interventions is acceptable and a potential way to make these services more accessible.

Exploring Why Financial Incentives Fail to Affect At-home Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Despite success in increasing other health behaviors, financial incentives have shown limited to no effect on colorectal cancer (CRC screening. Little is known about the factors shaping why and for whom incentives improve screening.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspective of participants enrolled in a larger, four-arm pragmatic trial at urban family medicine practices which assessed and failed to detect significant effects of financial incentives on at-home CRC screening completion.

DESIGN

We performed a mixed methods study with a subset of randomly selected patients, stratified by study arm, following completion of the pragmatic trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients (46.9% enrollment rate) who were eligible and overdue for colorectal cancer screening at the time of trial enrollment and who continued to receive care at family medicine practices affiliated with an urban academic health system completed the interview and questionnaire.

MAIN MEASURES

Using Andersen's behavioral model, a semi-structured interview guide assessed motivators, barriers, and facilitators to screening completion and the impact of incentives on decision-making. Participants also completed a brief questionnaire evaluating demographics, screening beliefs, and clinical characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

The majority of patients (n = 49; 82%) reported that incentives would not change their decision to complete or not complete CRC screening, which was confirmed by qualitative data as largely due to high perceived health benefits. Those who stated financial incentives would impact their decision (n = 11) were significantly less likely to agree that CRC screening is beneficial (72.7% vs 95.9%; p < 0.05) or that CRC could be cured if detected early (63.6% vs 98.0%; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentives are likely not an effective behavioral intervention to increase CRC screening for all but may be powerful for increasing short-term benefit and therefore completion for some. Targeting financial incentive interventions according to patient screening beliefs may prove a cost-effective strategy in primary care outreach programs to increase CRC screening.

Testing Enhanced Active Choice to Optimize Acceptance and Participation in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Malta

Opt-out strategies have been shown to improve participation in cancer screening; however, there are ethical concerns regarding the presumed consent. In this study, we tested an alternative opt-in strategy, called: "enhanced active choice," in which the response options summarize the consequences of the decision. The study was conducted as part of the Maltese colorectal cancer screening program, which offers men and women, aged 60-64, a "one-off" fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A total of 8349 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either an invitation letter that featured a standard opt-in strategy (control condition), or an alternative letter with a modified opt-in strategy (enhanced active choice condition). Our primary outcome was participation three months after the invitation was delivered. Additionally, we also compared the proportion who said they wanted to take part in screening. We used multivariable logistic regression for the analysis. Overall, 48.4% (N = 4042) accepted the invitation and 42.4% (N = 3542) did the screening test. While there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions in terms of acceptance and participation, enhanced active choice did increase acceptance among men by 4.6 percentage points, which translated to a significant increase in participation of 3.4 percentage points. We conclude that enhanced active choice can improve male screening participation. Given the higher risk of CRC in men, as well as their lower participation screening, we believe this to be an important finding.

Effect of Text Messaging and Behavioral Interventions on COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among urban populations remains low.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether text messaging with outbound or inbound scheduling and behaviorally informed content might increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial with a factorial design was conducted from April 29 to July 6, 2021, in an urban academic health system. The trial comprised 16 045 patients at least 18 years of age in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with at least 1 primary care visit in the past 5 years, or a future scheduled primary care visit within the next 3 months, who were unresponsive to prior outreach. The study was prespecified in the trial protocol, and data were obtained from the intent-to-treat population.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:20:20 ratio to (1) outbound telephone call only by call center, (2) text message and outbound telephone call by call center to those who respond, or (3) text message, with patients instructed to make an inbound telephone call to a hotline. Patients in groups 2 and 3 were concurrently randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive different content: standard messaging, clinician endorsement (eg, "Dr. XXX recommends"), scarcity ("limited supply available"), or endowment framing ("We have reserved a COVID-19 vaccine appointment for you").

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who completed the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine within 1 month, according to the electronic health record. Secondary outcomes were the completion of the first dose within 2 months and completion of the vaccination series within 2 months of initial outreach. Additional outcomes included the percentage of patients with invalid cell phone numbers (wrong number or nontextable), no response to text messaging, the percentage of patients scheduled for the vaccine, text message responses, and the number of telephone calls made by the access center. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Among the 16 045 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 36.9 (11.1) years; 9418 (58.7%) were women; 12 869 (80.2%) had commercial insurance, and 2283 (14.2%) were insured by Medicaid; 8345 (52.0%) were White, 4706 (29.3%) were Black, and 967 (6.0%) were Hispanic or Latino. At 1 month, 14 of 390 patients (3.6% [95% CI, 1.7%-5.4%]) in the outbound telephone call-only group completed 1 vaccine dose, as did 243 of 7890 patients (3.1% [95% CI, 2.7%-3.5%]) in the text plus outbound call group (absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -2.4% to 1.4%]; P = .57) and 253 of 7765 patients (3.3% [95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%]) in the text plus inbound call group (absolute difference, -0.3% [95% CI, -2.2% to 1.6%]; P = .72). Among the 15 655 patients receiving text messaging, 118 of 3889 patients (3.0% [95% CI, 2.5%-3.6%]) in the standard messaging group completed 1 vaccine dose, as did 135 of 3920 patients (3.4% [95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%]) in the clinician endorsement group (absolute difference, 0.4% [95% CI, -0.4% to 1.2%]; P = .31), 100 of 3911 patients (2.6% [95% CI, 2.1%-3.1%]) in the scarcity group (absolute difference, -0.5% [95% CI, -1.2% to 0.3%]; P = .20), and 143 of 3935 patients (3.6% [95% CI, 3.0%-4.2%]) in the endowment group (absolute difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.4%]; P = .14).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There was no detectable increase in vaccination uptake among patients receiving text messaging compared with telephone calls only or behaviorally informed message content.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834726.

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

•

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.

•

We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.

•

The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.

•

Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.

•

BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Digital Health Interventions to Enhance Prevention in Primary Care: Scoping Review

Background

Disease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.

Objective

This review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.

Methods

A scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.

Results

The search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.

Conclusions

Preventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.

Health plan-based mailed fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening among dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees: Outcomes of 2 program models

BACKGROUND

Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies).

METHODS

This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described.

RESULTS

All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126).

CONCLUSIONS

An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees.

LAY SUMMARY

Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy.

METHODS

Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system.

RESULTS

Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).

Leave me out: Patients' characteristics and reasons for opting out of a pragmatic clinical trial involving medication adherence

Opt-out procedures are sometimes used instead of standard consent practices to enable patients to exercise their autonomous preferences regarding research participation while reducing patient and researcher burden. However, little is known about the characteristics of patients who opt-out of research and their reasons for doing so. We gathered such information in a large pragmatic clinical trial (PCT) evaluating the effect of theory informed text messages on medication adherence.Eligible patients, identified through electronic health records, were sent information about the study and provided with an opportunity to opt-out. Those opting out were asked to complete a voluntary survey regarding their reasons for doing so. Demographic data were compared among patients opting-out vs those included in the study using chi-squared tests and a log binomial regression model.Of 9046 patients receiving study packets, 906 (10.0%) patients returned opt-out forms. Of those, 451 (49.8%) returned the opt-out survey. Patients who opted out were more likely to be older, white, and nonHispanic than those who were included in the PCT. Survey respondents expressed high levels of trust in their health care providers, research, and system. Nearly half (46.6%) reported concerns about time as a reason to opt-out.In this PCT, 10% of patients receiving packets opted out, with significant differences in age, race, gender, and ethnicity compared to those included. Future trials should further investigate representativeness and reasons patients choose to opt-out of participating in research.

Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials

•Behavioral economic-based interventions have been suggested to increase uptake in CRC screening programmes.•This study tested the effectiveness of six behavioral economic-based messages in two field trials.•None of the messages increased screening participation.

Receptivity to a Nurse-Led Symptom Management Intervention Amongst Highly Symptomatic Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND

The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively impact patients' quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention.

METHODS

In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped wedge trial conducted as part of the NCI IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least one severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to "opt-in" to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to "opt-out" if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs. opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least one severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, p=.01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, p<.001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, p=.002), were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call.

CONCLUSION

Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.

Text Messaging and Opt-out Mailed Outreach in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Routine screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality, but screening rates fall below national targets and are particularly low in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of a single text message outreach to serial text messaging and mailed fecal home test kits on colorectal cancer screening rates.

DESIGN

A two-armed randomized clinical trial.

PARTICIPANTS

An 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.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants 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 MEASURES

The primary outcome was participation in colorectal cancer screening at 12 weeks. The secondary outcome was the FIT kit return rate at 12 weeks.

KEY RESULTS

Four 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).

CONCLUSIONS

Serial text messaging with opt-out mailed FIT kit outreach can substantially improve colorectal cancer screening rates in an underserved population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03479645 ).

Behavioral interventions to improve population health outreach for hepatitis C screening: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether opt out framing, messaging incorporating behavioral science concepts, or electronic communication increases the uptake of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening in patients born between 1945 and 1965.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

43 primary care practices from one academic health system (Philadelphia, PA, USA) between April 2019 and May 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients born between 1945 and 1965 with no history of screening and at least two primary care visits in the two years before the enrollment period.

INTERVENTIONS

This multilevel trial was divided into two studies. Substudy A included 1656 eligible patients of 17 primary care clinicians who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a mailed letter about HCV screening (letter only), or a similar letter with a laboratory order for HCV screening (letter+order). Substudy B included the remaining 19 837 eligible patients followed by 417 clinicians. Active electronic patient portal users were randomized 1:5 to receive a mailed letter about HCV screening (letter), or an electronic patient portal message with similar content (patient portal); inactive patient portal users were mailed a letter. In a factorial design, patients in substudy B were also randomized 1:1 to receive standard content (usual care), or content based on principles of social norming, anticipated regret, reciprocity, and commitment (behavioral content).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of patients who completed HCV testing within four months.

RESULTS

21 303 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Among the 1642 patients in substudy A, 19.2% (95% confidence interval 16.5% to 21.9%) completed screening in the letter only arm and 43.1% (39.7% to 46.4%) in the letter+order arm (P<0.001). Among the 19 661 patients in substudy B, 14.6% (13.9% to 15.3%) completed screening with usual care content and 13.6% (13.0% to 14.3%) with behavioral science content (P=0.06). Among active patient portal users, 17.8% (16.0% to 19.5%) completed screening after receiving a letter and 13.8% (13.1% to 14.5%) after receiving a patient portal message (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Opt out framing and effort reduction by including a signed laboratory order with outreach increased screening for HCV. Behavioral science messaging content did not increase uptake, and mailed letters achieved a greater response rate than patient portal messages.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03712553.

The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Simple Summary

There is large heterogeneity in invitation schemes and participation rates in colorectal cancer screening programs offering fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests). It is unclear what the most effective invitation strategies are for fecal occult blood tests. In this systematic review, advance notification, mailed fecal occult blood test, and reminders had major, consistent, and complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening. Our findings show that the effectiveness of invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening can be substantially increased across several settings by the implementation of comprehensive invitation strategies.

Abstract

Personal invitations for fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests) are increasingly used to raise their usage for colorectal cancer screening. However, there is a large heterogeneity in applied invitation schemes. We aimed to review evidence for the effectiveness of various invitation schemes. The main outcome was the fecal occult blood test usage rate. A systematic search was performed in Medline and Web of Science (up to 9 July 2020). Randomized controlled trials or cluster-randomized controlled trials were eligible, which reported on general invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening sent to the general population at average colorectal cancer risk. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169409). Overall, 34 studies were included. Invitations with an attached, i.e., mailed fecal occult blood test consistently increased test usage by 4–19.7% points, compared to other methods of test provision. Likewise, the introduction of advance notification consistently led to a higher usage rate, with an increase of 3.3–10.8% points. Reminders showed positive but varying effects by method. With an increase of 8.5–15.8% points, letter or email reminders were more effective than reminders by phone call or text message (0.6–6.5% points). Inconsistent results were found for financial incentives ((−8.4)–20% points) and for added or changed invitation material ((−3.5)–11.8% points). With 3.5–24.7% points, the strongest increases in use were achieved by multifaceted invitation, implementing multiple components. Any invitation scheme was superior over no invitation. Advance notification, mailing of fecal occult blood test, and reminders were consistently shown to have major, complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening settings.

Application of Behavioral Economics Principles Improves Participation in Mailed Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although various interventions have improved screening rates, they often require abundant resources and can be difficult to implement. Social psychology and behavioral economics principles offer an opportunity for low-cost and easy-to-implement strategies but are less common in clinical settings.

METHODS:

We randomized 2,000 patients aged 50–75 years eligible for CRC screening to one of the 2 mailed interventions: a previously used text-based letter describing and offering fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and colonoscopy (usual care arm); or a letter leveraging social psychology and behavioral economics principles (e.g., implied scarcity and choice architecture), minimal text, and multiple images to offer FIT and colonoscopy (intervention arm). We compared total screening uptake, FIT uptake, and colonoscopy uptake at 1-month intervals in each group.

RESULTS:

There were 1,882 patients included in the final analysis. The mean age was 69.3 years, and baseline characteristics in the 2 groups were similar. Screening completion at 26 weeks was 19.5% in the usual care arm (16.3% FIT vs 3.2% colonoscopy, P < 0.01) and 24.1% in the intervention arm (22.1% FIT vs 2.0% colonoscopy, P < 0.01) (P = 0.02).

DISCUSSION:

Among primary care patients aged 50–75 years in an academic setting, mailed CRC outreach employing social psychology and behavioral economics principles led to a higher participation in CRC screening than usual care mailed outreach.

TRANSLATIONAL IMPACT:

Mailed interventions to increase CRC screening should incorporate social psychology and behavioral economics principles to improve participation.

Framework and Strategies to Eliminate Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes

Preventable differences in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality across racial/ethnic, economic, geographic, and other groups can be eliminated by assuring equitable access and quality across the care continuum, but few interventions have been demonstrated to do so. Multicomponent strategies designed with a health equity framework may be effective. A health equity framework takes into account social determinants of health, multilevel influences (policy, community, delivery, and individual levels), screening processes, and community engagement. Effective strategies for increasing screening uptake include patient navigation and other interventions for structural barriers, reminders and clinical decision support, and data to continuously track metrics and guide targets for improvement. Community resource gaps should be addressed to assure high-quality services irrespective of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status. One model combinespopulation-based proactive outreach screening with screening delivery at in-person or virtual points of contact, as well as community engagement. Patient- and provider-based behavioral interventions may be considered for increasing screening demand and delivery. Providing a choice of screening tests is recommended for CRC screening, and access to colonoscopy is required for completion of the CRC screening process.

Text messaging and lottery incentive to improve colorectal cancer screening outreach at a community health center: A randomized controlled trial

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).

An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care

INTRODUCTION

The use of screening can prevent death from colorectal cancer, yet people without regular healthcare visits may not realize the benefits of this preventive intervention. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a mailed screening invitation or mailed fecal immunochemical test in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in veterans without recent primary care encounters.

STUDY DESIGN

Three-arm pragmatic randomized trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Participants were screening-eligible veterans aged 50-75 years, without a recent primary care visit who accessed medical services at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017. All data were analyzed from March 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomized to (1) usual opportunistic screening during a healthcare visit (n=260), (2) mailed invitation to screen and reminder phone calls (n=261), or (3) mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach plus reminder calls (n=61).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome under investigation was the completion of colorectal cancer screening within 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

Of 782 participants in the trial, 53.9% were aged 60-75 years and 59.7% were African American. The screening rate was higher in the mailed fecal immunochemical test group (26.1%) compared with usual care (5.8%) (rate difference=20.3%, 95% CI=14.3%, 26.3%; RR=4.52, 95% CI=2.7, 7.7) or screening invitation (7.7%) (rate difference=18.4%, 95% CI=12.2%, 24.6%; RR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1, 5.4). Screening completion rates were similar between invitation and usual care (rate difference=1.9%, 95% CI= -2.4%, 6.2%; RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.7, 2.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Mailed fecal immunochemical test screening promotes colorectal cancer screening participation among veterans without a recent primary care encounter. Despite the addition of reminder calls, an invitation letter was no more effective in screening participation than screening during outpatient appointments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02584998.

Using Behavioral Economics and Technology to Improve Outcomes in Cardio-Oncology

Patients with cancer are often at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease due to overlapping risk factors and cardiotoxic anticancer treatments. Their cancer diagnoses may be the predominant focus of clinical care, with less of an emphasis on concurrent cardiovascular risk management. Widely adopted technology platforms, including electronic health records and mobile devices, can be leveraged to improve the cardiovascular outcomes of these patients. These technologies alone may be insufficient to change behavior and may have greater impact if combined with behavior change strategies. Behavioral economics is a scientific field that uses insights from economics and psychology to help explain why individuals are often predictably irrational. Combining insights from behavioral economics with these scalable technology platforms can positively impact medical decision-making and sustained healthy behaviors. This review focuses on the principles of behavioral economics and how "nudges" and scalable technology can be used to positively impact clinician and patient behaviors.

Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and some racial minorities. Disparities in CRC incidence and outcomes might result from differences in exposure to risk factors such as unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle; limited access to risk-reducing behaviors such as chemoprevention, screening, and follow-up of abnormal test results; or lack of access to high-quality treatment resources. These factors operate at the individual, provider, health system, community, and policy levels to perpetuate CRC disparities. However, CRC disparities can be eliminated. Addressing the complex factors that contribute to development and progression of CRC with multicomponent, adaptive interventions, at multiple levels of the care continuum, can reduce gaps in mortality. These might be addressed with a combination of health care and community-based interventions and policy changes that promote healthy behaviors and ensure access to high-quality and effective measures for CRC prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Improving resources and coordinating efforts in communities where people of low socioeconomic status live and work would increase access to evidence-based interventions. Research is also needed to understand the role and potential mechanisms by which factors in diet, intestinal microbiome, and/or inflammation contribute to differences in colorectal carcinogenesis. Studies of large cohorts with diverse populations are needed to identify epidemiologic and molecular factors that contribute to CRC development in different populations.

Association of an Active Choice Intervention in the Electronic Health Record Directed to Medical Assistants With Clinician Ordering and Patient Completion of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

IMPORTANCE

Early cancer detection can lead to improved outcomes, but cancer screening tests are often underused.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of an active choice intervention in the electronic health record directed to medical assistants with changes in clinician ordering and patient completion of breast and colorectal cancer screening tests.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective quality improvement study was conducted among 69 916 patients eligible for breast or colorectal cancer screening at 25 primary care practices at the University of Pennsylvania Health System between September 1, 2014, and August 31, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from January 21 to July 8, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

From 2016 to 2017, 3 primary care practices at the University of Pennsylvania Health System implemented an active choice intervention in the electronic health record that prompted medical assistants to inform patients about cancer screening during check-in and template orders for clinicians to review during the visit.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was clinician ordering of cancer screening tests. The secondary outcome was patient completion of cancer screening tests within 1 year of the primary care visit.

RESULTS

The sample eligible for breast cancer screening comprised 26 269 women with a mean (SD) age of 60.4 (6.9) years; 15 873 (60.4%) were white and 7715 (29.4%) were black. The sample eligible for colorectal cancer screening comprised 43 647 patients with a mean (SD) age of 59.4 (7.5) years; 24 416 (55.9%) were women, 19 231 (44.1%) were men, 29 029 (66.5%) were white, and 9589 (22.0%) were black. For breast cancer screening, the intervention was associated with a significant increase in clinician ordering of tests (22.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 17.2-27.6 percentage points; P < .001) but no change in patient completion (0.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.0 to 4.3 percentage points; P = .45). For colorectal cancer screening, the intervention was associated with a significant increase in clinician ordering of tests (13.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 8.0-18.9 percentage points; P < .001) but no change in patient completion (1.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.2 to 4.6 percentage points; P = .36).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

An active choice intervention in the electronic health record directed to medical assistants was associated with a significant increase in clinician ordering of breast and colorectal cancer screening tests. However, it was not associated with a significant change in patient completion of either cancer screening test during a 1-year follow-up.

Effect of Sequential or Active Choice for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Colonoscopy 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.

Objective

To 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 Participants

Three-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.

Interventions

Eligible 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 Measures

The 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.

Results

In 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 Relevance

There 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 Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

The effect of the Affordable Care Act on patient out-of-pocket cost and use of preventive cancer screenings in Massachusetts

In an effort to increase use of preventive health care, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) eliminated cost-sharing for preventive cancer screening services for the privately insured. The impact on patient spending and use of these screenings is still poorly understood. We used an interrupted time series analysis with the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (2009-2012) to assess changes in trends in costs and use of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screenings after the ACA policy. We find that the ACA was associated with a 0.024 (95% CI: -0.031, -0.017, p < 0.001) and 0.424 (95% CI: -0.481, -0.368, p < 0.001) percentage point decrease in the likelihood of a copayment each week for preventive breast and cervical cancer screenings respectively. The likelihood of copayment for colon cancer screening declined throughout the study period, with the rate of decline slowing following the ACA (trend in percent of screenings with copayment -0.130 before vs -0.071 after ACA, p = 0.014). Overall, we find only weak evidence that the ACA policy increased screenings. We find no significant effect on utilization for cervical cancer or colon cancer screening. For breast cancer screening, we find a small immediate increase in the utilization rate in the month after the policy change, with no change in trend after the ACA policy. Policy makers may need to consider other complementary policy options to increase screening rates.