ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2019
Low Literacy Level Instructions and Reminder Calls Improve Patient Handling of Fecal Immunochemical Test Samples.
Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02613260 (Mailed FIT Outreach to Improve Colon Cancer Screening in the Safety-net System), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 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.
Mailed FIT Outreach to Improve Colon Cancer Screening in the Safety-net System
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Trial
- Longitudinal Adherence With Stool-Based Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four United States Health Systems.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of Innovation Scales for Mail-Based Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Self-Collection Among U.S. Low-Income Women.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- Approaches to Reach Trustworthy Patient Education: A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- 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 · 2024Article
- Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.AJPM focus · 2024Article
- Unsatisfactory Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Prevalence, Reasons, and Subsequent Testing.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024Article
- Screening for Colorectal Cancer: The Role of Clinical Laboratories.Clinical chemistry · 2024Article
- Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia: protocol for a group randomized, delayed intervention trial.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of community health · 2023Article
- Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022Article
- From Cancer Epidemiology to Policy and Practice: the Role of a Comprehensive Cancer Center.Current epidemiology reports · 2022Review
- Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit.CA: a cancer journal for clinicians · 2020Article
- Clock-Drawing Test as a Screening Tool for Cognitive Impairment Associated With Fecal Immunochemical Test Collection Errors.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsThe fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is an alternative to colonoscopy and can increase overall screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, little is known about the frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples.
methodsWe performed a prospective study, nested within a randomized controlled trial of patients, recruited from December 2015 through August 2017, who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening (50-75 years old). The patients were randomly assigned to usual care or outreach groups that received a mailed FIT with low literacy level instructions or a reminder call, or both. We examined frequency of and reasons for mishandled FIT samples, including absence of collection date; time from collection to laboratory receipt of more than 14 days; or mishandling of stool, buffer, or cap. The outcomes were the frequency of mishandled FIT samples, effects of outreach on mishandling, and positive results from the FIT among proper and mishandled samples.
resultsFIT samples were returned from 1871 patients assigned to usual care and 3045 who received the low literacy level instructions and a reminder call. In total, 19.8% of samples were mishandled; most of these (93.7%) had not labeled the date of stool collection but were still processed. Of the received samples, 1.2% of were not processed because the time from patient collection to laboratory receipt was more than 14 days. Outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples (16.5% vs 25.0% for usual care; P < .0001). The proportion of mishandled samples was lowest among patients who received the low literacy level instruction and a reminder call (12.8%, P < .0001). There was no significant difference in proportions of positive results between properly processed samples (7.5%) and improperly processed samples (6.2%) (P = .14).
conclusionIn a prospective study of patients who were not up to date with colorectal cancer screening, we found that almost 20% of FIT samples were mishandled, with most patients missing the stool collection date. Patient outreach was associated with a lower proportion of mishandled samples, but there was no difference in proportions of positive results between properly and improperly handled samples. Our findings indicate that routine processing of undated FIT samples is associated with similar rates of positive results. There are limited data on test characteristics for FIT samples beyond the 14 days of stool acquisition. The inclusion of low literacy level instructions with reminder calls was associated with improved patient handling of the FIT sample. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT02613260.
Indexed as
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.