Trial reportCancer2020
Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population.
Trial report in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and others misunderstand stool testing for colorectal cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Review
- System-Wide Implementation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Value-Based Care Setting.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implementing a Multisectoral Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in an African American Community.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Self-collection Intervention on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Underscreened U.S. Persons with a Cervix.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Article
- Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of community health · 2023Article
- Cross-sectional adherence with the multi-target stool DNA test for colorectal cancer screening in a medicaid population.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- 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
- Observational
- Comparative benefit and cost-effectiveness of mailed-out faecal immunochemical tests vs collection at the general practitioner.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit.
methodsThe authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty.
resultsThe anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened.
conclusionsThe reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.
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.