ArticleHealth promotion practice2020
Cost and Effectiveness of Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers in West Virginia.
Article in Health promotion practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colorectal Cancer Screening Beyond Primary Care: A Community-Based FIT Distribution Model Serving a Safety-Net Hospital Population.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Settings: A Scoping Review.Preventing chronic disease · 2025Article
- Using REDCap to Address Gaps in Electronic Health Record Data for Strengthening Colorectal Cancer Screening and Navigation.Advances in health information science and practice · 2025Article
- Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma methylation markers in salivary DNA.Bioscience reports · 2024Article
- Implementing an enhanced mailed FIT program to improve CRC screening at a federally qualified health center: experiences of patients and staff.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- How to Perform Economic Evaluation in Implementation Studies: Imaging-Specific Considerations and Comparison of Financial Models.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2023Article
- Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.Health promotion practice · 2020Article
- Examining the Sustainability of Core Capacity and Evidence-Based Interventions for FIT-Based CRC Screening: California Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.
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.