Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26101306›Full record

Trial reportCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2015

Efficacy of a Telehealth Intervention on Colonoscopy Uptake When Cost Is a Barrier: The Family CARE Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Laurie E Steffen, Kenneth M Boucher, Barbara H Damron, Lisa M Pappas, Scott T Walters, Kristina G Flores, Watcharaporn Boonyasiriwat, Sally W Vernon, Antoinette M Stroup, Marc D Schwartz and 9 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
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, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development of FamilyTalk: an Intervention to Support Communication and Educate Families About Colorectal Cancer Risk.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020
    Article
  11. Epidemiology and Implementation of Cancer Prevention in Disparate Populations and Settings.American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Laurie E SteffenUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Kenneth M BoucherHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Barbara H DamronUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Lisa M PappasHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Scott T WaltersDepartment of School of Public Health Behavioral and Community Health, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
Kristina G FloresUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Watcharaporn BoonyasiriwatFaculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sally W VernonDivision of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas.
Antoinette M StroupDepartment of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway Township, New Jersey. Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Marc D SchwartzDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC.
Sandra L EdwardsDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Wendy K KohlmannHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Jan T LoweryDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, Colorado.
Charles L WigginsUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Deirdre A HillUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
John C HigginbothamCommunity and Rural Medicine Institute for Rural Health Research, College of Community Health Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Randall BurtHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Rebecca G SimmonsHuntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Anita Y KinneyUniversity of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Division of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico. AYKinney@salud.unm.edu.
University of Utah · USHuntsman Cancer Institute · US

Funding

UTAH REGIONAL CANCER CENTERP30CA042014 · NCI · UTAH STATE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM--UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI KATHARINE S ULLMAN · 1986 to 2026
$72.6M
UNM HSC Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001449 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI CAMPEN, MATTHEW J, PANDHI, NANCY · 2015 to 2024
$36.9M
University of Utah Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001067 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI DERE, WILLARD H., HESS, RACHEL · 2013 to 2017
$19.8M
Impact of Remote Familial Risk Assessment and CounselingR01CA125194 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI KINNEY, ANITA Y. · 2008 to 2012
$3.1M
NOVEL NUCLEAR PROTEINS IN NORMAL AND CANCER CELLSR01CA054404 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PASTERNACK, GARY R. · 1992 to 1999
–
NOVEL NUCLEAR PROTEINS IN NORMAL AND CANCER CELLSR55CA054404 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI PASTERNACK, GARY R. · 1991 to 1991
–
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001067NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001449NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA125194-0305NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201000026CNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201300010INCI NIH HHS N01 PC035139NCI NIH HHS N01 PC054404NCI NIH HHS P30 CA042014NCI NIH HHS R01 CA125194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE) compared with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers.

methodsFamily members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N = 232) or an educational brochure (N = 249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained nonadherent. Rates of medically verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared on the basis of group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers.

resultsIn intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically verified colonoscopy [OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.85-7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.52).

conclusionsTeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers. IMPACT: Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent.

Indexed as

AdultColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFees and ChargesFemaleHumansIntention to Treat AnalysisMaleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicPopulation SurveillancePostal ServiceTelemedicineTelephone

Identifiers

PMID26101306
PMCPMC4734378
OpenAlexW2152739621

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.