ArticleJournal of family medicine2017
A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening: Collaboration between a Primary Care Clinic and Research Team.
Article in Journal of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Multi-faceted strategies to advance health equity in colorectal cancer screening in primary care setting: quality improvement project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.AJPM focus · 2024Article
- Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Scoping review of costs of implementation strategies in community, public health and healthcare settings.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Policies: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis.International journal of preventive medicine · 2022Review
- What's the "secret sauce"? How implementation variation affects the success of colorectal cancer screening outreach.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
- Faecal immunochemical testing implementation to increase colorectal cancer screening in primary care.BMJ open quality · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that mailed fecal testing programs are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening participation. However, few healthcare organization in the US have Implemented such programs.
methodsStakeholders from one clinic in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State initiated collaboration with researchers with expertise in CRC screening, aiming to increase screening rates at their clinic. Age-eligible individuals who were overdue for CRC screening and had previously completed a fecal test were randomized to receive mailed fecal immunochemical test kits (FIT) at the start of the project (Early) or 6 months later (Late). Outcomes included comparing FIT completion at 6 months by randomization group, and overall CRC screening rates at 12 months. We also assessed implementation facilitators and challenges.
resultsOverall 2,421 FIT tests were mailed at a cost of $10,739. At 6 months, FIT completion was significantly higher among the Early compared to the Late group (62% vs.47%, p <0.001). By 12 months, after both groups had received mailings, 71% in each group had completed a FIT. The clinic's overall CRC screening rate was 75.1% at baseline and 78.0% 12 months later. Key constructs associated with successful program implementation included strong stakeholder involvement, use of evidence-based strategies, simplicity, and low cost. Challenges included lack of a plan for maintaining the program. DISCUSSION: Collaboration between clinic stakeholders and researchers led to a successful project that rapidly increased CRC screening rates. However, institutional normalization of the program would be required to maintain it.
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.