Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35746986›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Increasing Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates by Implementing Effective "Reminder to Complete Kit" Communication With Participants: A Quality Improvement Study.

Sameer Prakash, Nooraldin Merza, Omid Hosseini, Haven Ward, Tarek Mansi, Michelle Balducci, Deborah Trammell, Brenda Hernandez, Izi Obokhare

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
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

9 authors.

Sameer PrakashInternal Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, USA.
Nooraldin MerzaInternal Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, USA.
Omid HosseiniSchool of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA.
Haven WardSchool of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA.
Tarek MansiInternal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.
Michelle BalducciGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.
Deborah TrammellGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.
Brenda HernandezGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.
Izi ObokhareGeneral and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States is increasing. It remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States for men and women combined, mainly due to underutilization of screening methods. The American Cancer Society now recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to determine if reminder methods, such as telephone or letter reminders, increased the return rate of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for CRC screening. Methodology At public outreach events and daily clinics in the West Texas Panhandle area, participants in the GET FIT program were provided with FIT kits after completing the education on CRC. Participants who fit the inclusion criteria and had received a FIT kit from the program were included. They were instructed on how to perform the test and mail it back. Participants who did not return the completed kits within two weeks were reminded either through (1) a reminder letter, (2) telephone, or (3) a combination of letter reminder and telephone call every two weeks (±three days) for 60 days or five attempts to contact. We de-identified and analyzed the FIT kit return data from April-September 2019 before analyzing these reminder methods. We then calculated the change in return rates from October 2019 to March 2020. Our goal was to increase the FIT return rates by 25% compared to the baseline return rate. Results The pre-intervention return rate of kits for April-September 2019 was 61.52%, and the post-intervention return rate for October 2019-March 2020 was 71.85%. This rate was equal to an approximately 16.79% increase in return rates that was statistically significant (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference in the method of reminder between the two groups, but no significant differences in gender and race/ethnicity between the two groups. There was a significant difference in return rates between race/ethnicities in the October-March cohort with black and Hispanic participants having the highest return rates of 82.3% and 77.25%, respectively. Conclusions FIT remains one of the primary options for CRC screening. Due to its lower cost and noninvasiveness, FIT was offered to patients at average risk. We demonstrated an increase in return rates, although we did not meet our target return rate goal for this project. This study was limited due to a gradual increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and a subsequent shift and conversation of ongoing research into COVID-19.

Indexed as

colon cancer preventioncolorectal cancerdisease surveillance and notificationearly screeningquality improvement research

Identifiers

PMID35746986
PMCPMC9206862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.