Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31969343›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2020

Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women.

David R Lairson, Tong Han Chung, Danmeng Huang, Timothy E Stump, Patrick O Monahan, Shannon M Christy, Susan M Rawl, Victoria L Champion

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

David R LairsonSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas. David.R.Lairson@uth.tmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2285-0527
Tong Han ChungSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.ORCID 0000-0001-6135-1654
Danmeng HuangSchool of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas.
Timothy E StumpIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Patrick O MonahanIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Shannon M ChristyDivision of Population Science, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Susan M RawlIndiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.ORCID 0000-0003-2052-2853
Victoria L ChampionIndiana University Simon Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.ORCID 0000-0002-6153-0713
Indiana University Health · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston · USIndiana University School of MedicineUniversity of Indianapolis · US

Funding

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE EDUCATION--CANCER PREVENTION/CONTROLR25CA057712 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MULLEN, PATRICIA DOLAN · 1992 to 2017
$8.6M
Training in Research for Behavioral Oncology and Cancer Control ProgramR25CA117865 · NCI · INDIANA UNIV-PURDUE UNIV AT INDIANAPOLIS · PI CHAMPION, VICTORIA LEE · 2006 to 2015
$4.1M
Behavioral Oncology Education & Career DevelopmentR25CA090314 · NCI · H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CTR &RES INST · PI BRANDON, THOMAS H · 2003 to 2018
$4.0M
Increasing Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screnning in WomenR01CA136940 · NCI · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI CHAMPION, VICTORIA LEE · 2010 to 2014
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA136940NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057712NCI NIH HHS R25 CA090314NCI NIH HHS R25 CA117865
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective, but many U.S. women are nonadherent, and the cost-effectiveness of web-based tailored screening interventions is unknown. A randomized controlled trial, COBRA (Increasing Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screening), was the source of information for the economic evaluation. COBRA compared screening among a Usual Care group to: (i) tailored Phone Counseling intervention; (ii) tailored Web intervention; and (iii) tailored Web + Phone intervention groups. A sample of 1,196 women aged 50 to 75 who were nonadherent to colorectal cancer screening were recruited from Indiana primary care clinics during 2013 to 2015. Screening status was obtained through medical records at recruitment with verbal confirmation at consent, and at 6-month follow-up via medical record audit and participant self-report. A "best sample" analysis and microcosting from the patient and provider perspectives were applied to estimate the costs and effects of the interventions. Statistical uncertainty was analyzed with nonparametric bootstrapping and net benefit regression analysis. The per participant cost of implementing the Phone Counseling, Web-based, and Web + Phone Counseling interventions was $277, $314, and $336, respectively. The incremental cost per person screened for the Phone Counseling compared with no intervention was $995, while the additional cost of Web and the Web + Phone compared with Phone Counseling did not yield additonal persons screened. Tailored Phone Counseling significantly increased colorectal cancer screening rates compared with Usual Care. Tailored Web interventions did not improve the screening rate compared with the lower cost Phone Counseling intervention.

Indexed as

AgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisDistance CounselingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIndianaInternet-Based InterventionMiddle AgedOccult BloodPatient CompliancePatient Education as TopicTelephone

Identifiers

PMID31969343
PMCPMC8802485
OpenAlexW3002489175

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.