Trial reportAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015
An economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in primary care practice.
Trial report in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00697047 (Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 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.
Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.JAMA oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Economic Evaluations Informed Exclusively by Real World Data: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
- The Case for Patient Navigation in Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review.Population health management · 2019Pooled it
- A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Developing Patient-Refined Messaging for a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in a Latino-Based Community Health Center.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMTrial
- Patient-Refined Messaging for a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Study.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMTrial
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH).Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFMTrial
- Economic evaluations performed alongside randomized implementation trials in clinical settings: a systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Using a continuum of hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies to put research-tested colorectal screening interventions into practice.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Article
- Economic evaluation of patient navigation programs in colorectal cancer care, a systematic review.Health economics review · 2018Review
- Financial models used to embed registered nurses in primary health care settings in the United States: A scoping review.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionRecent colorectal cancer screening studies focus on optimizing adherence. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of interventions using electronic health records (EHRs); automated mailings; and stepped support increases to improve 2-year colorectal cancer screening adherence.
methodsAnalyses were based on a parallel-design, randomized trial in which three stepped interventions (EHR-linked mailings ["automated"]; automated plus telephone assistance ["assisted"]; or automated and assisted plus nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal [navigated"]) were compared to usual care. Data were from August 2008 to November 2011, with analyses performed during 2012-2013. Implementation resources were micro-costed; research and registry development costs were excluded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were based on number of participants current for screening per guidelines over 2 years. Bootstrapping examined robustness of results.
resultsIntervention delivery cost per participant current for screening ranged from $21 (automated) to $27 (navigated). Inclusion of induced testing costs (e.g., screening colonoscopy) lowered expenditures for automated (ICER=-$159) and assisted (ICER=-$36) relative to usual care over 2 years. Savings arose from increased fecal occult blood testing, substituting for more expensive colonoscopies in usual care. Results were broadly consistent across demographic subgroups. More intensive interventions were consistently likely to be cost effective relative to less intensive interventions, with willingness to pay values of $600-$1,200 for an additional person current for screening yielding ≥80% probability of cost effectiveness.
conclusionsTwo-year cost effectiveness of a stepped approach to colorectal cancer screening promotion based on EHR data is indicated, but longer-term cost effectiveness requires further study.
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.