Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28505217›Full record

Trial reportJAMA internal medicine2017

Effect of Combined Patient Decision Aid and Patient Navigation vs Usual Care for Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Vulnerable Patient Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Daniel S Reuland, Alison T Brenner, Richard Hoffman, Andrew McWilliams, Robert L Rhyne, Christina Getrich, Hazel Tapp, Mark A Weaver, Danelle Callan, Laura Cubillos and 2 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02054598 (The CHOICES/OPCIONES Project), which is not on this map. Cited by 70 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT02054598 nacompletednot on this map

The CHOICES/OPCIONES Project: Improving Colon Cancer Screening for Diverse Populations

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2014 to 2016Enrolled265ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsDecision aid and navigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Implementation of Coach McLungsBMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. 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

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel S ReulandCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill2Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill3Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Alison T BrennerCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill2Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill3Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Richard HoffmanDepartment of Medicine, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City5University of Iowa Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City6Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque.
Andrew McWilliamsDepartment of Family Medicine, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Robert L RhyneDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque8University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque.
Christina GetrichDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque9Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park.
Hazel TappDepartment of Family Medicine, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Mark A WeaverDivision of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill10Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Danelle CallanUniversity of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center, Albuquerque.
Laura CubillosCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Brisa Urquieta de HernandezDepartment of Family Medicine, Carolinas HealthCare System, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Michael P PignoneCecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill2Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill3Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill11Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Dell Medical School, Austin.
Carolinas Healthcare System · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USNew Mexico Cancer Center · USUniversity of Iowa Holden Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of Maryland, College Park · USUNM Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Christopher K Laubenthal · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCH UNITP30DK056350 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Ian Michael Carroll · 1999 to 2026
$31.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. Objective: To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Interventions: Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. Results: Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsDecision Support TechniquesEarly Detection of CancerAgedBlack or African AmericanColonoscopyDecision MakingFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansMaleMedical Records, Problem-OrientedMiddle AgedNew MexicoNorth CarolinaOccult Blood

Identifiers

PMID28505217
PMCPMC5710456
OpenAlexW2613403200

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.