Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23818159›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014

Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice.

Samantha Hendren, Paul Winters, Sharon Humiston, Amna Idris, Shirley X L Li, Patricia Ford, Raymond Specht, Stephen Marcus, Michael Mendoza, Kevin Fiscella

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020
    Trial
  12. Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Financial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Randomized Control Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019
    Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Participant uptake of the fecal immunochemical test decreases with the two-sample regimen compared with one-sample FIT.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2014
    Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha HendrenDepartment of Surgery, University of Michigan, 2124 Taubman Center, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr., SPC-5343, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA, hendren@med.umich.edu.
Paul Winters
Sharon Humiston
Amna Idris
Shirley X L Li
Patricia Ford
Raymond Specht
Stephen Marcus
Michael Mendoza
Kevin Fiscella
University of Rochester · USHighland Hospital · USChildren's Mercy Hospital · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

RCT of Primary Care-based Patient Navigation-ActivationU01CA116924 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI FISCELLA, KEVIN ANTHONY · 2005 to 2011
$4.4M
Improving Rectal Cancer Surgery Through Regional CollaborationK07CA163665 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI HENDREN, SAMANTHA KATHLEEN · 2012 to 2015
$700k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA163665NCI NIH HHS U01 CA116924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.

objectiveTo assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.

designPatients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors. SUBJECTS: All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.

interventionThe 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of cancer screening at 1 year. KEY

resultsThree hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 185) or usual care (n = 181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p = 0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p = 0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.

conclusionsA multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsCorrespondence as TopicEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealthcare DisparitiesHealth PromotionHumansMaleMammographyMiddle AgedNew YorkPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID23818159
PMCPMC3889982
OpenAlexW1969229686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.