ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2013
Feasibility of a call-in centre to deliver colorectal cancer screening in primary care.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of a call-in centre to deliver colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care through self-administered fecal occult blood testing (FOBT).
designFour-month intervention study (September 2010 to January 2011) with randomly selected follow-up interviews.
settingThe family medicine clinics of 3 hospitals in Montreal, Que.
participantsLetters from doctors invited their patients to contact the call-in centre (N = 761). Eligible patients agreeing to FOBT were sent testing kits that could be returned by mail (N = 100). Randomly selected patients (N = 36) were interviewed to explore the reasons why they did not contact the call-in centre, or why they did or did not adhere to FOBT.
main outcome measuresFeasibility was assessed by the proportions of patients who contacted the call-in centre, who were eligible for FOBT, and who adhered to FOBT; and by the time between invitation mail-out and contact with the call-in centre, initial telephone contact and receipt of the signed consent form, and FOBT kit mail-out and receipt of the kit by the laboratory. Hierarchical logistic regression evaluated the effect of patient characteristics on feasibility indicators, adjusting for clustering by physician and centre.
resultsOf 761 patients (61.6% female, mean age 61.0 years), 250 (32.9%) contacted the call-in centre, of whom 100 (40.0%) were eligible for and consented to FOBT; 62 (62.0%) of these patients adhered to FOBT. Median (interquartile range) time from invitation mail-out to call-in centre contact was 21 (7 to 29) days, from initial telephone contact to receipt of the signed consent form was 24 (10 to 38) days, and from FOBT kit mail-out to receipt at the laboratory was 23 (18 to 32) days. With the exception of previous cancer diagnosis, patient characteristics were not associated with feasibility indicators. Of the 115 (46.0%) patients determined to be ineligible for FOBT screening, 111 (96.5%) were up to date with or already scheduled for screening.
conclusionFeasibility of the call-in centre was demonstrated. Targeting screening-eligible individuals or coupling a call-in service with another evidence-based CRC screening improvement strategy might further improve uptake of fecal testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24336560PMC3860945W2149646678What 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.