Trial reportCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2024
Evaluating the Reach of a Patient Navigation Program for Follow-up Colonoscopy in a Large Federally Qualified Health Center.
Trial report in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing a successful patient navigation program for follow-up colonoscopy: Lessons from the PRECISE study.PloS one · 2026Trial
- The COMPLETE-CRC Screening Initiative: Increasing Colonoscopy Completion After Positive Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- The shift of expenditure of medical service for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer from 2005 to 2014: a hospital-based retrospective survey in Guangxi.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Areas of improvement for colorectal cancer screening: Results of a screening initiative for 10,000 health care employees in Austria.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to improve participation in cancer screening, including colorectal cancer screening, and is now a recommended practice by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Despite the effectiveness of PN programs, little is known about the number of contacts needed to successfully reach patients or about the demographic and healthcare utilization factors associated with reach. PRECISE was an individual randomized study of PN versus usual care conducted as a partnership between two large health systems in the Pacific Northwest. The navigation program was a six-topic area telephonic program designed to support patients with an abnormal fecal test result to obtain a follow-up colonoscopy. We report the number of contact attempts needed to successfully reach navigated patients. We used logistic regression to report the demographic and healthcare utilization characteristics associated with patients allocated to PN who were successfully reached. We identified 1,200 patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result, of whom 970 were randomized into the study (45.7% were female, 17.5% were Spanish-speaking, and the mean age was 60.8 years). Of the 479 patients allocated to the PN intervention, 382 (79.7%) were reached within 18 call attempts, and nearly all (n = 356; 93.2%) were reached within six contact attempts. Patient characteristics associated with reach were race, county of residence, and body mass index. Our findings can guide future efforts to optimize the reach of PN programs. Prevention Relevance: The findings from this large study can inform clinic-level implementation of future PN programs in Federally Qualified Health Centers to improve the reach of patients needing cancer screenings, optimize staff resources, and ultimately increase cancer screenings.
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.