Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24739235›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2014

Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: results from a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

Kathleen Clouston, Alan Katz, Patricia J Martens, Jeff Sisler, Donna Turner, Michelle Lobchuk, Susan McClement, Gary Crow, CIHR/CCMB Team in Primary Care Oncology (PCO-NET)

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01026753 (Innovative Tools to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Manitoba), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 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.

NCT01026753 nacompletednot on this map

Innovative Tools to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Manitoba

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ManitobaRan2010 to 2011Enrolled2,395ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsRefrigerator Magnet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Focusing on colorectal cancer in young adults (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician.European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
    Review
  9. Article
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

9 authors.

Kathleen CloustonDepartment of Family Medicine Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba, 208 Baisinger Drive, Winnipeg R2N 4H7 MB, Canada. kclousto@cc.umanitoba.ca.
Alan Katz
Patricia J Martens
Jeff Sisler
Donna Turner
Michelle Lobchuk
Susan McClement
Gary Crow
CIHR/CCMB Team in Primary Care Oncology (PCO-NET)

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research AQC - 83509Canadian Institutes of Health Research H2009:312
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvaluation of the effectiveness of a patient decision aid (nurse-managed telephone support line and/or colorectal cancer screening website), distributed to patients by their family physician, in improving fecal occult blood test (FOBT) colorectal cancer screening rates.

methodsA pragmatic, two arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada (39 medical clinic clusters; 79 fee-for-service family physicians; 2,395 average risk patients). All physicians followed their standard clinical screening practice. Intervention group physicians provided a fridge magnet to patients that facilitated patient decision aid access. Primary endpoint was FOBT screening rate within four months.Multi-level logistic regression to determine effect of cluster, physician, and patient level factors on patient FOBT completion rate. ICC determined.

resultsFamily physicians were randomized to control (n = 39) and intervention (n = 40) groups. Compared to controls (56.9%; n = 663/1165), patients receiving the intervention had a higher FOBT completion rate (66.6%; n = 805/1209; OR of 1.47; 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.03; p < 0.02). Patient aid utilization was low (1.1%; 13/1,221) and neither internet nor telephone access affected screening rates for the intervention group. FOBT screening rates differed among clinics and physicians (p < 0.0001). Patients whose physician promoted the FOBT were more likely to complete it (65%; n = 1140/1755) compared to those whose physician did not (51.1%; n = 242/470; p < 0.0001; OR of 1.54 and 95% CI of 1.23 to 1.92). Patients reporting they had done an FOBT in the past were more likely to complete the test (70.6%; n = 1141/1616; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 2.51 to 3.73) than those who had not (43%; n = 303/705). Patients 50-59 years old had lower screening rates compared to those over 60 (p < 0.0001). 75% of patients completing the test did so in 34 days.

conclusionDespite minimal use of the patient aid, intervention group patients were more likely to complete the FOBT. Powerful strategies to increase colorectal cancer screening rates include a recommendation to do the test from the family physician and focusing efforts on patients age 50-59 years to ensure they complete their first FOBT.

trial registrationTRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01026753.

Indexed as

InternetOccult BloodPhysicians, FamilyCanadaColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatients

Identifiers

PMID24739235
PMCPMC4023547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.