ArticlePreventive medicine reports2019
Challenges in assessing population reach in a pragmatic trial.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01742065 (Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing Pharmacist-Led Telehealth Care and Clinic-Based Care for Uncontrolled High Blood Pressure: The Hyperlink 3 Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Trial.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2022Trial
- Determining patient eligibility for a physical activity referral scheme through EHR data extraction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?Preventive medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Enhancing the use of EHR systems for pragmatic embedded research: lessons from the NIH Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial conducted at federally qualified health centers and designed to "Reach" as many unscreened patients as possible by directly mailing them fecal screening tests. STOP CRC used an electronic health record registry to identify individuals' needing CRC screening and mail interventions to them. The registry was updated daily removing individuals completing CRC screening or those who no longer were clinic patients. Reach, a component RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), is defined as the absolute number, percent, and representativeness of individuals "willing to participate in" or "exposed to" an initiative. We describe the complexities of measuring Reach in a pragmatic trial. Overall 21,134 patients were on the registry list for at least one day, with 18,226 remaining after removing patients completing screening before any mailings. Observed Reached (the percent of individuals exposed to the intervention) using each denominator was 30.7% and 35.6% respectively. Reach improved only modestly after accounting for factors that made it impossible for clinics to send mailings. Few differences were observed in demographic and health care utilization factors among individuals Reached versus not Reached, suggesting that health center Implementation was more influential than patients' willingness or ability to participate. A pragmatic definition of Reach that accounted for dynamic changes the absolute number eligible and the proportion exposed was more useful than traditional definitions of Reach. Actual Reach was dependent on Implementation and not patient level characteristics. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ClincalTrials.gov (NCT01742065).
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.