Trial reportEvaluation and program planning2021
Startup and implementation costs of a colorectal cancer screening tailored navigation research study.
Trial report in Evaluation and program planning, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Community-to-Clinic Tailored Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Underserved Population: Economic Evaluation Alongside a Group-Randomized Trial.American journal of health promotion : AJHP · 2022Trial
- Return on investment of community health workers in the United States: a systematic review.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite improvements in screening, testing for CRC is underutilized in some populations, suggesting a need to identify efficient test promotion strategies.
methodsOur intervention guided individuals from low-income, underserved communities into primary care clinics to receive CRC screening referrals. Community sites were randomized to education or education plus navigation. The Phase I community-to-clinic navigation outcome was clinic attendance; the Phase II clinic-to-screening navigation outcome was screening completion. We used micro-costing to determine costs necessary to replicate our project in a similar, non-research setting.
resultsOver the 4-year project, startup costs tended to decrease as implementation costs increased. The largest component of startup costs (32 % of total) was community site recruitment. Implementation costs per class attendee were higher in the navigation group ($1084) than control ($798). But costs per participant who made a clinic appointment ($3573 versus $6292) and per participant who completed screening ($4083 versus $7640) were lower in the navigation group.
conclusionsOur description of startup and implementation costs for this intervention provides decision makers with information needed to plan and budget for a similar project to guide individuals from community into clinics.
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.