Trial reportCancer2014
Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.
Trial report in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of health economic evidence in clinical practice guidelines for colorectal cancer: a comparative analysis across countries.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Pooled it
- Components and effectiveness of patient navigation programmes to increase participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.JAMA oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-Effectiveness of Home-Based Self-Sampling vs Clinician Sampling for Anal Precancer Screening.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Community-to-Clinic Tailored Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Underserved Population: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Group-Randomized Trial.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2022Trial
- Startup and implementation costs of a colorectal cancer screening tailored navigation research study.Evaluation and program planning · 2021Trial
- An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening.American journal of preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Trial
- Impact of Risk Assessment and Tailored versus Nontailored Risk Information on Colorectal Cancer Testing in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2015Trial
- An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.American journal of preventive medicine · 2015Trial
- Characteristics and Effectiveness of Patient Navigation Programs on Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Colonoscopy Uptake: A Systematic Review.AJPM focus · 2026Review
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Benefits, Cost, and Activities of Patient Navigation (PN) Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening at the Charles B. Wang Community Health Center (CBWCHC).Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2020Article
- Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients.
methodsParticipants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses.
resultsProgram costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant.
conclusionsThe TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.
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.