Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31003603›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2019

Time to Follow-up After Colorectal Cancer Screening by Health Insurance Type.

Nancy Breen, Celette Sugg Skinner, Yingye Zheng, Stephen Inrig, Douglas A Corley, Elisabeth F Beaber, Mike Garcia, Jessica Chubak, Chyke Doubeni, Virginia P Quinn and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer Screening Test Use-U.S., 2019.American journal of preventive medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy BreenOffice of Science Planning, Policy, Analysis, Reporting and Data, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland. Electronic address: breenn@mail.nih.gov.
Celette Sugg SkinnerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Parkland Health and Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Population Sciences, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas.
Yingye ZhengDepartment of Biostatistics, Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Stephen InrigDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Parkland Health and Hospital System/University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Douglas A CorleyDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California.
Elisabeth F BeaberDepartment of Biostatistics, Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Mike GarciaDepartment of Biostatistics, Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Jessica ChubakKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Chyke DoubeniDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Virginia P QuinnResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Jennifer S HaasBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Christopher I LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Public Health Science Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington.
Karen J WernliKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Carrie N KlabundeOffice of Disease Prevention, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
PROSPR consortium
Fred Hutch Cancer Center · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USHarvard University · USKaiser Permanente · USKaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center · USOffice of Disease Prevention · USParkland Health & Hospital System · USPolicy Analysis (United States) · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening PREcision and Outcomes in CommunIty-baSEd Populations (PRECISE)UM1CA222035 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN · 2018 to 2023
$15.6M
Optimizing the use of colonoscopy for CRC screening in a large community-basedU54CA163262 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN, DOUBENI, CHYKE ABADAMA · 2011 to 2017
$9.6M
Parkland-UT Southwestern PROSPR Center Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety netU54CA163308 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI SKINNER, CELETTE SUGG · 2011 to 2017
$8.0M
PROSPR Statistical Coordinating Center (PSCC)U01CA163304 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BARLOW, WILLIAM E, THORNQUIST, MARK · 2011 to 2017
$7.5M
Studying Colorectal Cancer Effectiveness of Screening Strategies (SuCCESS)U54CA163261 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA · 2011 to 2017
$7.3M
Promoting personalized decisions for breast cancer screening for women AND theirU54CA163307 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, ONEGA, TRACY · 2011 to 2017
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA163304NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163261NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163262NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163308NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA222035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that patients with Medicaid insurance or Medicaid-like coverage would have longer times to follow-up and be less likely to complete colonoscopy compared with patients with commercial insurance within the same healthcare systems.

methodsA total of 35,009 patients aged 50-64years with a positive fecal immunochemical test were evaluated in Northern and Southern California Kaiser Permanente systems and in a North Texas safety-net system between 2011 and 2012. Kaplan-Meier estimation was used between 2016 and 2017 to calculate the probability of having follow-up colonoscopy by coverage type. Among Kaiser Permanente patients, Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association between coverage type and receipt of follow-up, adjusting for sociodemographics and health status.

resultsEven within the same integrated system with organized follow-up, patients with Medicaid were 24% less likely to complete follow-up as those with commercial insurance. Percentage receiving colonoscopy within 3 months after a positive fecal immunochemical test was 74.6% for commercial insurance, 63.10% for Medicaid only, and 37.5% for patients served by the integrated safety-net system.

conclusionsThis study found that patients with Medicaid were less likely than those with commercial insurance to complete follow-up colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test and had longer average times to follow-up. With the future of coverage mechanisms uncertain, it is important and timely to assess influences of health insurance coverage on likelihood of follow-up colonoscopy and identify potential disparities in screening completion.

Indexed as

Time-to-TreatmentCaliforniaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansInsurance CoverageInsurance, HealthKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMedicaidMiddle AgedOccult BloodProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31003603
PMCPMC6820676
OpenAlexW2939995239

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.