Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30359473›Full record

ArticleCancer2018

Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients.

Heather L M Dacus, Victoria L Wagner, Elisè A Collins, Jacqueline M Matson, Margaret Gates, Sonja Hoover, Florence K L Tangka, Teri Larkins, Sujha Subramanian

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Heather L M DacusDivision of Chronic Disease Prevention, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Victoria L WagnerOffice of Quality and Patient Safety, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Elisè A CollinsDivision of Chronic Disease Prevention, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Jacqueline M MatsonOffice of Quality and Patient Safety, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Margaret GatesDivision of Chronic Disease Prevention, New York State Department of Health, Albany, New York.
Sonja HooverRTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0002-6205-1212
Florence K L TangkaDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Teri LarkinsDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Sujha SubramanianRTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts.ORCID 0000-0003-2415-9721
New York State Department of Health · USCenters for Disease Control and Prevention · USRTI International · US

Funding

CDC HHS 4,Intramural CDC HHS CC999999New York State Department of Health 1NU58DP6102RTI International
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population.

methodsPatients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized.

resultsIn total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region.

conclusionsScreening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMedicaidPatient-Centered CareReminder SystemsAgedCohort StudiesColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleManaged Care ProgramsMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNew YorkPatient ParticipationPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID30359473
PMCPMC6263860
OpenAlexW2898237048

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.