ArticleAJPM focus2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Implementing a Multisectoral Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening in an African American Community.
Article in AJPM focus, 2025. 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.
- Costs and cost-effectiveness of a culturally adapted diabetes self-management and education program for Marshallese adults.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Examining the Cost-Effectiveness of Introducing Patient Navigation Services for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among a Low-Income and Uninsured Population.Health services insights · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among African Americans, the authors collaborated with a public service agency (i.e., Douglas County Treasurers' Office) and other community and healthcare partners to implement a multicomponent fecal immunochemical test intervention. The objectives of this study are to (1) determine the costs and cost-effectiveness of the community-based fecal immunochemical test intervention between the 2 different types of provision strategies: on-site distribution of fecal immunochemical test versus mailing of fecal immunochemical test upon request; and (2) estimate the budgetary impact if this program is sustained by community organizations or the local health department. Methods: Using data from a community colorectal cancer screening outreach trial collected between January 3, 2022, and April 4, 2022, the authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis and a budget impact analysis of a multicomponent colorectal cancer screening program. Cost-effectiveness analysis was evaluated using 2 measures: an average implementation cost-effectiveness ratio using the effect and cost data of the overall colorectal cancer screening program and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio when comparing the on-site distribution with mailing of fecal immunochemical test upon request. For the budget impact analysis, the authors used the process map developed for the outreach program workflow to guide the budget impact estimate of the on-site distribution. The authors further conducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate 1-year replication costs of the on-site distribution strategy. Results: The overall community outreach program for colorectal cancer screening totaled $14,541, with labor costs of $12,757 and nonlabor costs of $1,784 for the 3-month period. Individually, total costs for on-site distribution ( Conclusions: The on-site fecal immunochemical testing kit distribution is an effective, practical, relatively low-cost community outreach strategy to improve colorectal cancer screening rates among African American communities. Future studies should explore resources for sustainability and uptake in different settings.
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.