Trial reportBMC gastroenterology2011
Cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder to increase colorectal cancer screening.
Trial report in BMC gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.JAMA oncology · 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
- Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Increasing hepatitis virus screening uptake at worksites in Japan using nudge theory and full subsidies.Environmental health and preventive medicine · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Get screened: a randomized trial of the incremental benefits of reminders, recall, and outreach on cancer screening.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Trial
- Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention designed to increase breast cancer screening among a non-adherent population: a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2012Trial
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Article
- The effects of reminders for colorectal cancer screening: participation and inequality.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Simulated Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions, North Carolina.Preventing chronic disease · 2017Article
- Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2015Article
- Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an awareness campaign for colorectal cancer: a mathematical modeling study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2014Article
- Colorectal cancer screening in an equal access healthcare system.Journal of Cancer · 2013Article
- Formative Evaluation to Assess Communication Technology Access and Health Communication Preferences of Alaska Native People.International journal of indigenous healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low in many areas and cost-effective interventions to promote CRC screening are needed. Recently in a randomized controlled trial, a mailed educational reminder increased CRC screening rates by 16.2% among U.S. Veterans. The aim of our study was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of a mailed educational reminder on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) adherence.
methodsIn a blinded, randomized, controlled trial, 769 patients were randomly assigned to the usual care group (FOBT alone, n = 382) or the intervention group (FOBT plus a mailed reminder, n = 387). Ten days after picking up the FOBT cards, a 1-page reminder with information related to CRC screening was mailed to the intervention group. Primary outcome was number of returned FOBT cards after 6 months. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the intervention were assessed and calculated respectively. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying costs of labor and supplies.
resultsAt 6 months after card distribution, 64.6% patients in the intervention group returned FOBT cards compared with 48.4% in the control group (P < 0.001). The total cost of the intervention was $962 or $2.49 per patient, and the ICER was $15 per additional person screened for CRC. Sensitivity analysis based on a 10% cost variation was $13.50 to $16.50 per additional patient screened for CRC.
conclusionsA simple mailed educational reminder increases FOBT card return rate at a cost many health care systems can afford. Compared to other patient-directed interventions (telephone, letters from physicians, mailed reminders) for CRC screening, our intervention was more effective and cost-effective.
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.