Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481306›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Financial Incentives for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

Samir Gupta, Stacie Miller, Mark Koch, Emily Berry, Paula Anderson, Sandi L Pruitt, Eric Borton, Amy E Hughes, Elizabeth Carter, Sylvia Hernandez and 7 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06929481 (Screening With Liquid Biopsies to Address Colorectal Cancer Inequities), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT06929481 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Screening With Liquid Biopsies to Address Colorectal Cancer Inequities

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San DiegoRan2025 to 2026Enrolled340ConditionsColorectal Cancer Screening, Colorectal Cancer (CRC)ArmsCell free DNA (cfDNA) blood test, At home Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) or Colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Lower Abnormal Fecal Immunochemical Test Cut-Off Values Improve Detection of Colorectal Cancer in System-Level Screens.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2020
    Trial
  11. Financial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Randomized Control Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2019
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Samir GuptaSan Diego Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, San Diego, California, USA.
Stacie MillerDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Mark KochDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Emily BerryUT Southwestern Medical Center, Moncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Paula AndersonUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Sandi L PruittUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Eric BortonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Amy E HughesDepartment of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Elizabeth CarterDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Sylvia HernandezDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Helen PozosDepartment of Family Medicine, John Peter Smith Health Network, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Ethan A HalmUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Ayelet GneezyRady School of Management, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Alicea J LiebermanRady School of Management, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Celette Sugg SkinnerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Keith ArgenbrightUT Southwestern Medical Center, Moncrief Cancer Institute, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.
Bijal BalasubramanianUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USHealth Net · USSouthwestern Medical Center · USJohn Peter Smith Hospital · USUniversity of California, San Diego · USSouthwestern Medical CenterUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas · USVA San Diego Healthcare System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOffering financial incentives to promote or "nudge" participation in cancer screening programs, particularly among vulnerable populations who traditionally have lower rates of screening, has been suggested as a strategy to enhance screening uptake. However, effectiveness of such practices has not been established. Our aim was to determine whether offering small financial incentives would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion in a low-income, uninsured population.

methodsWe conducted a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial among primary care patients, aged 50-64 years, not up-to-date with CRC screening served by a large, safety net health system in Fort Worth, Texas. Patients were randomly assigned to mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach (n=6,565), outreach plus a $5 incentive (n=1,000), or outreach plus a $10 incentive (n=1,000). Outreach included reminder phone calls and navigation to promote diagnostic colonoscopy completion for patients with abnormal FIT. Primary outcome was FIT completion within 1 year, assessed using an intent-to-screen analysis.

resultsFIT completion was 36.9% with vs. 36.2% without any financial incentive (P=0.60) and was also not statistically different for the $10 incentive (34.6%, P=0.32 vs. no incentive) or $5 incentive (39.2%, P=0.07 vs. no incentive) groups. Results did not differ substantially when stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, or neighborhood poverty rate. Median time to FIT return also did not differ across groups.

conclusionsFinancial incentives, in the amount of $5 or $10 offered in exchange for responding to mailed invitation to complete FIT, do not impact CRC screening completion.

Indexed as

Medically UninsuredMotivationPovertyColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFecesFemaleHumansImmunochemistryMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID27481306
OpenAlexW2502702292

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.