Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28923816›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM

"Finding the Right FIT": Rural Patient Preferences for Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Characteristics.

Robyn Pham, Suzanne Cross, Bianca Fernandez, Kathryn Corson, Kristen Dillon, Coco Yackley, Melinda M Davis

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection for Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024
    Article
  8. Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2024
    Article
  9. Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Low Literacy Level Instructions and Reminder Calls Improve Patient Handling of Fecal Immunochemical Test Samples.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2019
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. "Taking the Bull by the Horns": Four Principles to Align Public Health, Primary Care, and Community Efforts to Improve Rural Cancer Control.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2017
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Robyn PhamFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Suzanne CrossFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Bianca FernandezFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Kathryn CorsonFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Kristen DillonFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Coco YackleyFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD).
Melinda M DavisFrom Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, OR (RP, MMD); Community Health Advocacy and Research Alliance, Hood River (RP, SC, BF, KC, KD, CY, MMD); Columbia Gorge Health Council, The Dalles (SC, CY); The Next Door, Inc., Hood River (BF); PacificSource Columbia Gorge CCO, Hood River (KD); Department of Family Medicine & School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland (MMD). davismel@ohsu.edu.
Pacific Environment · USResearch Network (United States) · USColumbia Gorge Community College · US

Funding

Oregon Patient Centered Outcomes Research K12 ProgramK12HS022981 · AHRQ · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI GUISE, JEANNE-MARIE · 2014 to 2018
$4.1M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS022981
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death in the United States, yet 1 in 3 Americans have never been screened for CRC. Annual screening using fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is often a preferred modality in populations experiencing CRC screening disparities. Although multiple studies evaluate the clinical effectiveness of FITs, few studies assess patient preferences toward kit characteristics. We conducted this community-led study to assess patient preferences for FIT characteristics and to use study findings in concert with clinical effectiveness data to inform regional FIT selection.

methodsWe collaborated with local health system leaders to identify FITs and recruit age eligible (50 to 75 years), English or Spanish speaking community members. Participants completed up to 6 FITs and associated questionnaires and were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group. We used a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to assess participant preferences and rank FIT kits. First, we used quantitative data from user testing to measure acceptability, ease of completion, and specimen adequacy through a descriptive analysis of 1) fixed response questionnaire items on participant attitudes toward and experiences with FIT kits, and 2) a clinical assessment of adherence to directions regarding collection, packaging, and return of specimens. Second, we analyzed qualitative data from focus groups to refine FIT rankings and gain deeper insight into the pros and cons associated with each tested kit.

findingsSeventy-six FITs were completed by 18 participants (Range, 3 to 6 kits per participant). Over half (56%, n = 10) of the participants were Hispanic and 50% were female (n = 9). Thirteen participants attended 1 of 3 focus groups. Participants preferred FITs that were single sample, used a probe and vial for sample collection, and had simple, large-font instructions with colorful pictures. Participants reported challenges using paper to catch samples, had difficulty labeling tests, and emphasized the importance of having care team members provide verbal instructions on test completion and follow-up support for patients with abnormal results. FIT rankings from most to least preferred were OC-Light, Hemosure iFOB Test, InSure FIT, QuickVue, OneStep+, and Hemoccult ICT.

conclusionsFIT characteristics influenced patient's perceptions of test acceptability and feasibility. Health system leaders, payers, and clinicians should select FITs that are both clinically effective and incorporate patient preferred test characteristics. Consideration of patient preferences may facilitate FIT return, especially in populations at higher risk for experiencing CRC screening disparities.

Indexed as

Occult BloodColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceRural PopulationSpecimen HandlingSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodPatient PreferenceTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28923816
PMCPMC7363001
OpenAlexW2754160100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.