Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2014
Get screened: a randomized trial of the incremental benefits of reminders, recall, and outreach on cancer screening.
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 30 papers, 8 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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of patient navigation programs across the entire continuum of breast cancer care: a GRADE-assessed systematic review with meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Motivational Interviewing to Improve the Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Patient Navigation to Increase Cancer Screening in Populations Adversely Affected by Health Disparities: a Meta-analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2019Pooled it
- Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Motivational interviewing to improve health screening uptake: A systematic review.Patient education and counseling · 2017Pooled it
- Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Evaluating the Reach of a Patient Navigation Program for Follow-up Colonoscopy in a Large Federally Qualified Health Center.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024Trial
- A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Trial
- 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 · 2020Trial
- Effects of different reminder strategies on first-time mammography screening among women in Taiwan.BMC health services research · 2020Trial
- Trial
- A 4-year randomized trial comparing three outreach interventions to promote screening mammograms.Translational behavioral medicine · 2019Trial
- Harnessing the Question-Behavior Effect to Enhance Colorectal Cancer Screening in an mHealth Experiment.American journal of public health · 2016Trial
- Culture Is Key: Engaging Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations in Breast Cancer Screening in High Income Contexts: A Scoping Review.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Adults in Zuni Pueblo: Factors Associated with FOBT and Colonoscopy Utilization.Journal of community health · 2023Article
- Automated Emails to Improve Evening Staffing for Anesthesiologists.Journal of medical systems · 2023Article
- What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021Review
- Colonoscopy education delivered via the patient portal does not improve adherence to scheduled first-time screening colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments.
objectiveTo assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice.
designPragmatic randomized trial.
participantsMen and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening.
interventionsWe randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). MAIN MEASURES: Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. KEY
resultsCompared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates.
conclusionsThe addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.
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.