Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24192009›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2014

Strategies to improve repeat fecal occult blood testing cancer screening.

Terry C Davis, Connie L Arnold, Charles L Bennett, Michael S Wolf, Cristalyn Reynolds, Dachao Liu, Alfred Rademaker

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Health Literacy Research in Rural Areas.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
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

7 authors.

Terry C DavisAuthors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana; South Carolina College of Pharmacy, the Hollings Cancer Center of the Medical University of South Carolina, the Arnold School of Public Health, and the William Jennings Bryan Veterans Administration Medical Center, Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina; Division of General Internal Medicine & Geriatrics; and Department of Preventive Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Connie L Arnold
Charles L Bennett
Michael S Wolf
Cristalyn Reynolds
Dachao Liu
Alfred Rademaker

Funding

Tumor Environment and Metastasis (TEAM) Research ProgramP30CA060553 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Daniela E Matei · 1993 to 2026
$153.9M
Tracking & Evaluation CoreU54GM104940 · NIGMS · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI Peter Todd Katzmarzyk · 2012 to 2026
$69.1M
Health Literacy Intervention and Cancer ScreeningR01CA115869 · NCI · LOUISIANA STATE UNIV HSC SHREVEPORT · PI DAVIS, TERRY C · 2007 to 2011
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA060553NCI NIH HHS R01 CA115869NCI NIH HHS R01CA115869NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA comparative effectiveness intervention by this team improved initial fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) rates from 3% to 53% among community clinic patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and costs associated with a literacy-informed intervention on repeat FOBT testing.

methodsBetween 2008 and 2011, a three-arm quasi-experiential comparative effectiveness evaluation was conducted in eight community clinics in Louisiana. Clinics were randomly assigned to receive: enhanced care, a screening recommendation, and FOBT kit annually; a brief educational intervention where patients additionally received a literacy appropriate pamphlet and simplified FOBT instructions; or nurse support where a nurse manager provided the education and followed up with phone support. In year 2, all materials were mailed. The study consisted of 461 patients, ages 50 to 85 years, with a negative initial FOBT.

resultsRepeat FOBT rates were 38% enhanced care, 33% education, and 59% with nurse support (P = 0.017). After adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy, patients receiving nurse support were 1.46 times more likely to complete repeat FOBT screening than those receiving education [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-1.06; P = 0.002] and 1.45 times more likely than those in enhanced care but this was not significant (95% CI, 0.93-2.26; P = 0.10). The incremental cost per additional person screened was $2,450 for nurse over enhanced care.

conclusionA mailed pamphlet and FOBT with simplified instructions did not improve annual screening. IMPACT: Telephone outreach by a nurse manager was effective in improving rates of repeat FOBT, yet this may be too costly for community clinics.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24192009
PMCPMC3894742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.