ArticleResearch square2026
Take 2: The maintenance of a colorectal cancer screening program in intervention clinics and roll out in usual care clinics during the second year of a pragmatic trial.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In the United States, patients in rural settings screen for colorectal cancer (CRC) at a lower rate than urban patients. SMARTER CRC, a pragmatic trial to increase CRC screening in rural clinics in Oregon, implemented a screening program that included 1) mailing fecal immunochemical tests (FIT tests) in partnership with Medicaid health plans and 2) training clinics in navigating patients to complete colonoscopy follow-up to abnormal FIT testing. We describe the second year of the SMARTER CRC project, which includes the second year of implementation for the intervention clinics, and the first year of program rollout for the usual care clinics. Methods: SMARTER CRC partnered with three Medicaid health plans and 26 affiliated rural clinics. Our implementation outcomes in this mixed methods analysis were the proportion of eligible enrollees who were mailed a FIT and completed any CRC screening or FIT screening in 6 months or 12 months. We also measured if Year 1 clinics were more likely to continue CRC screening (overall and via FIT) at the same level or to increase screening in Year 2. Our qualitative evaluation contextualizes quantitative findings. Results: In Year 1, Medicaid health plans identified 5,614 enrollees due for screening. After clinic staff review, FIT mailings were sent to 1,489 enrollees in intervention clinics. In Year 2, health plans identified 9,805 enrollees due for CRC screening and mailings were sent to 2,764 in the intervention clinics and 3,505 in the usual care clinics. Overall CRC screening rates and FIT completion rates among eligible patients in the intervention clinics dropped from Year 1 to Year 2 (CRC 19.9% to 12.0%, p value = < 0.00; and FIT 15.7% to 6.6%, p value = < 0.00). In usual care clinics, overall screening increased (9.3% in Year 1 to 15% in Year 2, p-value = < 0.00, and FIT completion increased from 4.9% to 9.6%, p-value = <0.00). Conclusions: CRC screening rates dropped in the second-year implementation in intervention clinics yet increased in intervention-naïve usual care clinics. Sustaining impacts of effective implementation of FIT outreach interventions over time may require ongoing effort and support.
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.