Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31355924›Full record

Trial reportCancer2019

Follow-up approaches to a health literacy intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in rural community clinics: A randomized controlled trial.

Connie L Arnold, Alfred W Rademaker, James D Morris, Laurie Anne Ferguson, Gary Wiltz, Terry C Davis

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2020
    Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Health Literacy Research in Rural Areas.Studies in health technology and informatics · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Connie L ArnoldDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.ORCID 0000-0001-8961-2342
Alfred W RademakerDepartment of Preventive Medicine, Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
James D MorrisDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Laurie Anne FergusonCollege of Nursing and Health, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Gary WiltzTeche Action Clinic, Franklin, Louisiana.
Terry C DavisDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, Louisiana.
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport · USLoyola University New Orleans · USNorthwestern University · USResearch for Action · US

Funding

Tracking & Evaluation CoreU54GM104940 · NIGMS · LSU PENNINGTON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH CTR · PI JUDD E SHELLITO · 2012 to 2026
$69.1M
American Cancer Society RSG-13-021-01-CPPBNIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM104940
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSignificant disparities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among those of low socioeconomic status, with fewer years of education, lacking health insurance, or living in rural areas.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 2 follow-up approaches to a health literacy intervention to improve CRC screening: automated telephone call or personal call. Patients aged 50 to 75 years residing in 4 rural community clinics in Louisiana were given a structured interview that assessed demographic, health literacy and CRC screening barriers, knowledge, and attitudes. All were given health literacy-informed CRC education, a patient-friendly CRC screening pamphlet, simplified fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions, and a FIT kit, and a "teach-back" method was used to confirm understanding. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 telephone follow-up arms. If they did not mail their FIT kit within 4 weeks, they received a reminder call and were called again at 8 weeks if the test still was not received.

resultsA total of 620 patients were enrolled. Approximately 55% were female, 66% were African American, and 40% had limited literacy. The overall FIT completion rate was 68%: 69.2% in the automated telephone call arm and 67% in the personal call arm. Greater than one-half of the patients (range, 58%-60%) returned the FIT kit without receiving a telephone call. There was no difference noted with regard to the effectiveness of the follow-up calls; each increased the return rate by 9%.

conclusionsProviding FIT kits and literacy-appropriate education at regularly scheduled clinic visits with a follow-up telephone call when needed was found to increase CRC screening among low-income, rural patients. The lower cost automated call was just as effective as the personal call.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAgedAmbulatory Care FacilitiesColorectal NeoplasmsFecesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth EducationHealth LiteracyHumansLouisianaMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodRural Populationcolorectal cancer screeningdisparitieshealth literacypreventionrandomized controlled trialrural community clinics

Identifiers

PMID31355924
PMCPMC6763382
OpenAlexW2965364440

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.