Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33929646›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Mailed FIT in a Safety Net Clinic Population.

Michael Pignone, Brennan Lanier, Nicole Kluz, Victoria Valencia, Patrick Chang, Todd Olmstead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Effect of Telemedicine on Preventive Medicine- A Case from Israel.Israel journal of health policy research · 2025
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. IMPLEMENTING HOME-BASED CANCER PREVENTION AND SCREENING: AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EQUITY.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Michael PignoneDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. pignone@austin.utexas.edu.
Brennan LanierDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Nicole KluzDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Victoria ValenciaDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Patrick ChangDepartment of Population Health, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, USA.
Todd OlmsteadLyndon B Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Colorectal NeoplasmsSafety-net ProvidersAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOccult BloodPostal Servicecolorectal cancercost effectivenessfecal immunochemical testingscreening

Identifiers

PMID33929646
PMCPMC8606361

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.