Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30685318›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2019

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics.

Richard T Meenan, Gloria D Coronado, Amanda Petrik, Beverly B Green

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Self-collection Intervention on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Underscreened U.S. Persons with a Cervix.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard T MeenanKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA. Electronic address: Richard.Meenan@kpchr.org.
Gloria D CoronadoKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA.
Amanda PetrikKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N Interstate Ave, Portland, OR 97227, USA.
Beverly B GreenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Seattle, WA 98101, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · US

Funding

Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority PopulationsUH3CA188640 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CORONADO, GLORIA D · 2014 to 2017
$6.1M
Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority PopulationsUH2AT007782 · NCCIH · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CORONADO, GLORIA D, DEVOE, JENNIFER E · 2012 to 2013
$859k
NCCIH NIH HHS UH2 AT007782NCI NIH HHS UH3 CA188640
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program within eight federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon and California promoting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with appropriate colonoscopy follow-up. Results are presented of a cost-effectiveness analysis of STOP CRC. Organization staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets, assigning labor hours by intervention activity and job-specific wage rates. Non-labor costs were from study data. Data were collected over February 2014-February 2016; analyses were performed in 2016-2017. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using completed FITs adjusted for number of screening-eligible patients (SEPs), as the effectiveness measure were calculated overall and by organization. Intervention delivery costs totaled $305 K across eight organizations (range: $10.2 K-$110 K). Overall delivery cost per SEP was $14.43 (range: $10.37-$19.10). The largest cost category across organizations was implementation, specifically mailing preparation. The overall ICER was $483 per SEP-adjusted completed FIT (range: $96-$1021 among organizations with positive effectiveness). Lagged data accounting for implementation delay produced comparable results. The costs of colonoscopies following abnormal FITs decreased the overall ICER to S409 because usual care clinics generated more such colonoscopies than intervention clinics. Using lagged data, follow-up colonoscopies increase the ICER by 4.3% to $460. Results indicate the complex implications for cost-effectiveness of implementing standard CRC screening within a pragmatic setting involving FQHCs with varied patient populations, clinical structures, and resources. Performance variation across organizations emphasizes the need for future evaluations that inform the introduction of efficient CRC screening to underserved populations.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodSafety-net ProvidersAcademic Medical CentersAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCaliforniaColonoscopyElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedCancer screeningColon cancerCost analysisCost effectiveness analysisPrevention & control

Identifiers

PMID30685318
PMCPMC6392039
OpenAlexW2911644735

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.