Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23460053›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of internal medicine2013

An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial.

Beverly B Green, Ching-Yun Wang, Melissa L Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Richard T Meenan, Sally W Vernon, Sharon Fuller

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of internal medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00697047 (Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up), which is not on this map. Cited by 122 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
122citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00697047 nacompletednot on this map

Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaiser PermanenteRan2008 to 2019Enrolled4,653ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsAutomated Mailing, Automated Mailing Plus Assisted, Auto Plus Assisted Plus Navigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

122 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 182 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. A Randomized Trial of Choice Architecture and Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach in a Community Health Setting.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Trial
  12. Novel Application of Predictive Modeling: A Tailored Approach to Promoting HCC Surveillance in Patients With Cirrhosis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Randomized Controlled Trial of Advance Notification Phone Calls vs Text Messages Prior to Mailed Fecal Test Outreach.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

62 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Beverly B GreenGroup Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101-1466, USA. green.b@ghc.org
Ching-Yun Wang
Melissa L Anderson
Jessica Chubak
Richard T Meenan
Sally W Vernon
Sharon Fuller
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · US

Funding

Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-upR01CA121125 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GREEN, BEVERLY BETH · 2007 to 2017
$8.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121125NCI NIH HHS R01CA121125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening decreases colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, yet almost half of age-eligible patients are not screened at recommended intervals.

objectiveTo determine whether interventions using electronic health records (EHRs), automated mailings, and stepped increases in support improve CRC screening adherence over 2 years.

design4-group, parallel-design, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessments. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00697047)

setting21 primary care medical centers. PATIENTS: 4675 adults aged 50 to 73 years not current for CRC screening.

interventionUsual care, EHR-linked mailings ("automated"), automated plus telephone assistance ("assisted"), or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ("navigated"). Interventions were repeated in year 2. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of participants current for screening in both years, defined as colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy (year 1) or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in year 1 and FOBT, colonoscopy, or sigmoidoscopy (year 2).

resultsCompared with those in the usual care group, participants in the intervention groups were more likely to be current for CRC screening for both years with significant increases by intensity (usual care, 26.3% [95% CI, 23.4% to 29.2%]; automated, 50.8% [CI, 47.3% to 54.4%]; assisted, 57.5% [CI, 54.5% to 60.6%]; and navigated, 64.7% [CI, 62.5% to 67.0%]; P < 0.001 for all pair-wise comparisons). Increases in screening were primarily due to increased uptake of FOBT being completed in both years (usual care, 3.9% [CI, 2.8% to 5.1%]; automated, 27.5% [CI, 24.9% to 30.0%]; assisted, 30.5% [CI, 27.9% to 33.2%]; and navigated, 35.8% [CI, 33.1% to 38.6%]). LIMITATION: Participants were required to provide verbal consent and were more likely to be white and to participate in other types of cancer screening, limiting generalizability.

conclusionCompared with usual care, a centralized, EHR-linked, mailed CRC screening program led to twice as many persons being current for screening over 2 years. Assisted and navigated interventions led to smaller but significant stepped increases compared with the automated intervention only. The rapid growth of EHRs provides opportunities for spreading this model broadly.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPatient ComplianceReminder SystemsAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsComparative Effectiveness ResearchCosts and Cost AnalysisElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodPostal Service

Identifiers

PMID23460053
PMCPMC3953144
OpenAlexW1997315571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.