ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing behavioral economics principles in mailed FIT outreach: a randomized trial.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Trial
- Mailed Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers: The CARES Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2026Trial
- Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Trial
- Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Women Aged 45 to 64 Years.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Native American Women's Willingness to Screen for Both Cervical and Colorectal Cancer at Home.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Unmet social needs and colorectal cancer testing at 45-49 since the 2021 USPSTF recommendation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- System-Wide Implementation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Value-Based Care Setting.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Observational
- Longitudinal quality improvement project to increase colorectal cancer screening for an underserved population in a resident physician-led primary care clinic.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Epidemiology of Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Setting.AJPM focus · 2025Article
- The Effect of Telemedicine on Preventive Medicine- A Case from Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025Article
- Enhancing CRC Screening in a Predominantly Hispanic Community: Effectiveness of 1-Day vs. 3-Day Stool-Based Testing Kits.Journal of community health · 2025Observational
- IMPLEMENTING HOME-BASED CANCER PREVENTION AND SCREENING: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EQUITY.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2025Article
- Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas.Preventing chronic disease · 2024Article
- Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.AJPM focus · 2024Article
- Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Patient preferences for the design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Reach and effectiveness of a centralized navigation program for patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests requiring follow-up colonoscopy.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Equitable Implementation of Mailed Stool Test-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening and Patient Navigation in a Safety Net Health System.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Article
- Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of community health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, including for vulnerable patients, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear.
objectiveWe sought to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the initial cycle of our mailed FIT program from November 2017 to July 2019 in a federally qualified health center (FQHC) system in Central Texas.
designSingle group intervention and economic analysis
participantsEligible patients were those ages 50-75 who had been seen recently in a system practice and were not up to date with screening.
interventionThe program mailing packet included an introductory letter in plain language, the FIT itself, easy to read instructions, and a postage-paid lab mailer, supplemented with written and text messaging reminders. MAIN MEASURES: We measured effectiveness based on completion of mailed FIT and cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per person screened. Costs were measured using detailed micro-costing techniques from the perspective of a third-party payer and expressed in 2019 US dollars. Direct costs were based on material supply costs and detailed observations of labor required, valued at the wage rate. KEY
resultsOf the 22,838 eligible patients who received program materials, mean age was 59.0, 51.5% were female, and 43.9% were Latino. FIT were successfully completed by 19.2% (4395/22,838) patients at an average direct cost of $5275.70 per 500-patient mailing. Assuming completed tests from the mailed intervention represent incremental screening, the direct cost per patient screened, compared with no intervention, was $54.83. Incorporating start-up and indirect costs increases total costs to $7014.45 and cost per patient screened to $72.90. Alternately, assuming 2.5% and 5% screening without the intervention increased the direct (total) cost per patient screened to $60.03 ($80.80) and $67.05 ($91.47), respectively.
conclusionsMailed FIT is an effective and cost-effective population health strategy for CRC screening in vulnerable patients.
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.