ArticlePreventive medicine2019
Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.
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 22 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitation of Health Plan-Clinic Partnerships to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening for Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Qualitative Study.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Trial
- Mailed Outreach and Patient Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Women Aged 45 to 64 Years.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Analytical validation of a scrape-free multitarget stool RNA test for colorectal cancer screening.Practical laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implementing a Multisectoral Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in an African American Community.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Estimating the long-term health impact and program cost-effectiveness of providing direct screening services to low-income, medically underserved patients through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Difference-making factors for successful implementation of a multicomponent colorectal cancer screening program in rural clinics (SMARTER CRC).Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening by complex patients at an academic primary care practice: a feasibility study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas.Preventing chronic disease · 2024Article
- Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2023Article
- 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
- Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population.Population health management · 2022Article
- Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Article
- Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis.Preventive medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively prevented or detected with guideline concordant screening, yet Medicaid enrollees experience disparities. We used microsimulation to project CRC screening patterns, CRC cases averted, and life-years gained in the population of 68,077 Oregon Medicaid enrollees 50-64 over a five year period starting in January 2019. The simulation estimated the cost-effectiveness of five intervention scenarios - academic detailing plus provider audit and feedback (Detailing+), patient reminders (Reminders), mailing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) directly to the patient's home (Mailed FIT), patient navigation (Navigation), and mailed FIT with Navigation (Mailed FIT + Navigation) - compared to usual care. Each intervention scenario raised CRC screening rates compared to usual care, with improvements as high as 11.6 percentage points (Mailed FIT + Navigation) and as low as 2.5 percentage points (Reminders) after one year. Compared to usual care, Mailed FIT + Navigation would raise CRC screening rates 20.2 percentage points after five years - averting nearly 77 cancer cases (a reduction of 113 per 100,000) and exceeding national screening targets. Over a five year period, Reminders, Mailed FIT and Mailed FIT + Navigation were expected to be cost effective if stakeholders were willing to pay $230 or less per additional year up-to-date (at a cost of $22, $59, and $227 respectively), whereas Detailing+ and Navigation were more costly for the same benefits. To approach national CRC screening targets, health system stakeholders are encouraged to implement Mailed FIT with or without Navigation and Reminders.
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.