Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23627550›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2013

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in a community health center.

David W Baker, Tiffany Brown, David R Buchanan, Jordan Weil, Kenzie A Cameron, Lauren Ranalli, M Rosario Ferreira, Quinn Stephens, Kate Balsley, Shira N Goldman and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01453894 (Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services Project 1), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT01453894 nacompletednot on this map

Center for Advancing Equity in Clinical Preventive Services Project 1: Improving Rates of Repeat Colorectal Cancer Screening

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2012 to 2013Enrolled450ConditionsColorectal NeoplasmsArmsReminder and Outreach Intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Strategies to improve repeat fecal occult blood testing cancer screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David W Baker
Tiffany Brown
David R Buchanan
Jordan Weil
Kenzie A Cameron
Lauren Ranalli
M Rosario Ferreira
Quinn Stephens
Kate Balsley
Shira N Goldman
Michael S Wolf
Northwestern University · USErie Family Health Center · US

Funding

UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING HIGH RATES OF REFUSAL OF PNEUMOCOCCAL VACCINATION AP01HS021141 · AHRQ · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI CAMERON, KENZIE A · 2011 to 2013
$4.3M
AHRQ HHS P01 HS021141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is common and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or endoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Screening rates are particularly low for people with low incomes and members of underrepresented minority groups. FOBT should be done annually to detect CRC early and to reduce CRC mortality, but this often does not occur. This paper describes the design of a multifaceted intervention to increase long-term adherence to FOBT among poor, predominantly Latino patients, and the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of this intervention compared to usual care.

methodsIn this RCT, patients who are due for repeat FOBT are identified in the electronic health record (EHR) and randomized to receive either usual care or a multifaceted intervention. The usual care group includes multiple point-of-care interventions (e.g., standing orders, EHR reminders), performance measurement, and financial incentives to improve CRC screening rates. The intervention augments usual care through mailed CRC screening test kits, low literacy patient education materials, automated phone and text message reminders, in-person follow up calls from a CRC Screening Coordinator, and communication of results to patients along with a reminder card highlighting when the patient is next due for screening. The primary outcome is completion of FOBT within 6 months of becoming due. DISCUSSION: The main goal of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. Additionally, we want to assess whether or not it is possible to achieve high rates of adherence to CRC screening with annual FOBT, which is necessary for reducing CRC mortality. The intervention relies on technology that is increasingly widespread and declining in cost, including EHR systems, automated phone and text messaging, and FOBTs for CRC screening. We took this approach to ensure generalizability and allow us to rapidly disseminate the intervention through networks of community health centers (CHCs) if the RCT shows the intervention to be superior to usual care.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01453894.

Indexed as

Community Health CentersEarly Detection of CancerPatient ComplianceAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsComparative Effectiveness ResearchHumansMiddle AgedOccult BloodPatient Education as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID23627550
PMCPMC3656775
OpenAlexW1993720871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.