Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32748345›Full record

Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2020

Advanced Notification Calls Prior to Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test in Previously Screened Patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Briton Lee, Shreya Patel, Carly Rachocki, Rachel Issaka, Eric Vittinghoff, Jean A Shapiro, Uri Ladabaum, Ma Somsouk

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The Reach of Calls and Text Messages for Mailed FIT Outreach in the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2024
    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.

Briton LeeSchool of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Shreya PatelDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Carly RachockiDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rachel IssakaClinical Research & Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Eric VittinghoffDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Jean A ShapiroCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Uri LadabaumDivision of Gastroenterology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Ma SomsoukDivision of Gastroenterology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Ma.somsouk@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6116-3645

Funding

Developing an intervention to improve follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net population using a mixed methods approachK08CA241296 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI ISSAKA, RACHEL B. · 2019 to 2023
$1.1M
ACL HHS U48DP004998CDC HHS U48DP004998NCI NIH HHS K08 CA241296NIH HHS UL1 TR991872NIMHD NIH HHS L32 MD012892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhone calls as part of multimodal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach are effective but resource-intensive. Previous studies of advanced notification calls before FIT mailing have not differentiated patients' prior screening status.

objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of a phone call preceding mailing of a FIT kit on test completion rate for patients who have completed a prior FIT.

designRandomized controlled trial nested within a larger study. All patients were assigned to receive organized mailed FIT outreach in the larger study.

participantsPatients in a safety-net health setting ages 50-75 years old with a previously negative FIT.

interventionsPatients were assigned to either receive an advanced notification phone call or no phone call preceding a mailed FIT kit. Both groups received an informational postcard prior to the mailed FIT. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was FIT completion rate at 1 year. The secondary outcomes were FIT completion rates at 60, 90, and 180 days, rates stratified by demographic subgroups, and rates according to outcome of the phone call. KEY

resultsA total of 1645 patients were assigned to advanced notification calls and 1595 were assigned to no call preceding the FIT mailing. Although FIT completion rate was higher at day 60 (55.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.01), an advanced notification call did not significantly improve FIT completion at 1 year (70.9% vs. 69.9%, p = 0.52). Of the patients assigned to receive an advanced notification call, 90.5% were spoken with or left a voicemail; patients who were spoken with were more likely to complete a FIT at 1 year compared with patients who were only left a voicemail or could not be left a voicemail (79.9% vs. 69.2% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.01).

conclusionsAdvanced notification phone calls prior to FIT mailing did not improve rates at 1 year for patients with a previously negative FIT.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAgedHumansMiddle AgedOccult BloodPostal ServiceTelephonecolon cancerintroductory callpre-FIT reminderscreening outreach

Identifiers

PMID32748345
PMCPMC7572934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.