Trial reportJournal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi2011
Cost effectiveness of interventions to promote screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Trial
- Communication preference moderates the effect of a tailored intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among African Americans.Patient education and counseling · 2014Trial
- Trial
- Get screened: a randomized trial of the incremental benefits of reminders, recall, and outreach on cancer screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2013Trial
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Article
- Article
- Public awareness of colorectal cancer screening: knowledge, attitudes, and interventions for increasing screening uptake.ISRN oncology · 2014Review
- A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesScreening for colorectal cancer is considered cost effective, but is underutilized in the U.S. Information on the efficiency of "tailored interventions" to promote colorectal cancer screening in primary care settings is limited. The paper reports the results of a cost effectiveness analysis that compared a survey-only control group to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) web-based intervention (screen for life) and to a tailored interactive computer-based intervention.
methodsA randomized controlled trial of people 50 and over, was conducted to test the interventions. The sample was 1224 participants 50-70 years of age, recruited from Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, a large multi-specialty clinic in Houston, Texas. Screening status was obtained by medical chart review after a 12-month follow-up period. An "intention to treat" analysis and micro costing from the patient and provider perspectives were used to estimate the costs and effects. Analysis of statistical uncertainty was conducted using nonparametric bootstrapping.
resultsThe estimated cost of implementing the web-based intervention was $40 per person and the cost of the tailored intervention was $45 per person. The additional cost per person screened for the web-based intervention compared to no intervention was $2602 and the tailored intervention was no more effective than the web-based strategy.
conclusionsThe tailored intervention was less cost-effective than the web-based intervention for colorectal cancer screening promotion. The web-based intervention was less cost-effective than previous studies of in-reach colorectal cancer screening promotion. Researchers need to continue developing and evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.