Does access to a colorectal cancer screening website and/or a nurse-managed telephone help line provided to patients by their family physician increase fecal occult blood test uptake?: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial study protocol

Kathleen Clouston, Alan Katz, Patricia J Martens, Jeff Sisler, Donna Turner, Michelle Lobchuk, Susan McClement, CIHR/CCMB Team in Primary Care Oncology (PCO-NET), Kathleen Clouston, Alan Katz, Patricia J Martens, Jeff Sisler, Donna Turner, Michelle Lobchuk, Susan McClement, CIHR/CCMB Team in Primary Care Oncology (PCO-NET)

Abstract

Background: Fecal occult blood test screening in Canada is sub-optimal. Family physicians play a central role in screening and are limited by the time constraints of clinical practice. Patients face multiple barriers that further reduce completion rates. Tools that support family physicians in providing their patients with colorectal cancer information and that support uptake may prove useful. The primary objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of a patient decision aid (nurse-managed telephone support line and/or colorectal cancer screening website) distributed by community-based family physicians, in improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Secondary objectives include evaluation of (dis)incentives to patient FOBT uptake and internet use among 50 to 74 year old males and females for health-related questions. Challenges faced by family physicians in engaging in collaborative partnerships with primary healthcare researchers will be documented.

Methods/design: A pragmatic, two-arm, randomized cluster controlled trial conducted in 22 community-based family practice clinics (36 clusters) with 76 fee-for-service family physicians in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Each physician will enroll 30 patients attending their periodic health examination and at average risk for colorectal cancer. All physicians will follow their standard clinical practice for screening. Intervention group physicians will provide a fridge magnet to each patient that contains information facilitating access to the study-specific colorectal cancer screening decision aids (telephone help-line and website). The primary endpoint is patient fecal occult blood test completion rate after four months (intention to treat model). Multi-level analysis will include clinic, physician and patient level variables. Patient Personal Health Identification Numbers will be collected from those providing consent to facilitate analysis of repeat screening behavior. Secondary outcome data will be obtained through the Clinic Characterization Form, Patient Tracking Form, In-Clinic Patient Survey, Post-Study Follow-Up Patient Survey, and Family Physician Survey. Study protocol approved by The University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board.

Discussion: The study intervention has the potential to increase patient fecal occult blood test uptake, decrease colorectal cancer mortality and morbidity, and improve the health of Manitobans. If utilization of the website and/or telephone support line result in clinically significant increases in colorectal cancer screening uptake, changes in screening at the policy- and system-level may be warranted.

Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov identifier NCT01026753.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The 12 community areas of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. The seven community areas represented in the study protocol include St. James-Assiniboia, Assiniboine South, Downtown, River Heights, St. Boniface, St. Vital, and Fort Garry. These represent those areas not yet involved in the province’s colorectal cancer screening program.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study magnet design. Family physicians randomized to the intervention treatment group will provide each of their patients with a study refrigerator magnet (shown above) containing a unique seven character alpha-numeric study identification number that (1) facilitates access to the patient decision aids (a nurse-managed telephone support line and a website), (2) is linked to the Patient Tracking Form used by the family physician during the periodic health examination, and (3) linked to In-Clinic Patient Survey (Additional file 6). Family physicians will enroll between 30 to 35 patients who have provided their consent to participate in the study. The magnet was designed by the CIHR/CCMB Primary Care Oncology Research Team.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Site Map for the colorectal cancer information and screening study website. To obtain a website identification number and password to access to the study website, please contact Dr. Kathleen Clouston (kclousto@cc.umanitoba.ca).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Flow Diagram of study protocol for family physicians. Ψ, strata based on membership in the Physician Integrated Network (PIN) and/or Uniting Primary Care and Oncology Network (UPCON); blocked based on the number of family physicians per cluster.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Flow diagram of control group Study Protocol for family physicians and support staff. * Family Physicians will complete the Family Physician Survey (Additional file 11) upon completion of study requirements. Please refer to text for further details.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Flow diagram of intervention group study protocol for family physicians and support staff. * Family Physicians will complete the Family Physician Survey upon completion of study requirements. Please refer to text for further details.

References

    1. Canadian Cancer Society. Canadian Cancer Society: Canadian Cancer Statistics, 2011. Toronto; 2011. [ ]
    1. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Colorectal Screening in Canada: Current Facts and Resources. Resource Library; October, 2010. [ ]
    1. PRA Inc. Colorectal cancer screening: Results of a survey of Manitobans 50–74. Manitoba; 2008. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. Study: Mammography use and colorectal cancer testing. 2009. [ ]
    1. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (Hemoccult): An update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(6):1541–1549. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01875.x.
    1. Flanagan WM, Le Petit C, Berthelot JM, White KJ, Coombs BA, Jones-McLean E. Potential impact of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Canada. Chronic Dis Can. 2003;24(4):81–88.
    1. Kliewer EV, Wajda A, Blanchard JF. Manitoba Cancer Project: The increasing cancer burden. 2001. pp. 1995–2025.
    1. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. 2010. (Cancer Control Spotlight: Colorectal Cancer screening). .
    1. CancerCare Manitoba. Colorectal Cancer Five Year Survival Report. Manitoba; 2009.
    1. Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Irwig L, Towler B, Watson E. Screening for colorectal cancer using the fecal occult blood test, Hemoccult. Cochrane Database of Systemic Review. 2007, Jan 24. p. CD001216.
    1. Leddin D, Hunt R, Champion M, Cockeram A, Flook N, Gould M, Kim YI, Love J, Morgan D, Nutsheh S, Sadowski D. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation: Guidelines on colon cancer screening. Can J Gastroenterol. 2004;18:93–99.
    1. Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Colorectal cancer screening: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ. 2001;165:206–208.
    1. Public Health Agency of Canada. Technical Report for the National Committee on Colorectal Cancer Screening. May, 2002. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. Colorectal cancer testing in Canada-2008, Research Article. September, 2009. (Statistics Canada, Catalogue no. 82-003-XPE; Health Reports).
    1. Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener LJ. Priamry Care: Is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–641. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.4.635.
    1. Fortin M, Lapointe L, Hudon C, Vanasse A. Multimorbidity is common to family practice: is it commonly researched? Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:244–245.
    1. Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Lapointe L. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3:223–228. doi: 10.1370/afm.272.
    1. Carter RE, Rose DA, Palesch YY, Mintzer JE. Alzheimer’s disease in the family practice setting: Assessment of a screening tool. Prim Care Companion J Clinical Psychiatry. 2004;6(6):234–238. doi: 10.4088/PCC.v06n0603.
    1. Health Council of Canada. Decisions, Decisions: Family doctors as gatekeepers to prescription drugs and diagnostic imaging in Canada. September, 2010. [ ]
    1. Stokamer CL, Tenner CT, Chaudhuri J, Vazquez E, Bini EJ. Randomized controlled trial of the impact of intensive patient education on compliance with fecal occult blood testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(3):278–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40023.x.
    1. Janz NK, Becker MH. The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984;11(1):1–47. doi: 10.1177/109019818401100101.
    1. Chan EC, Vernon SW. Implementing an intervention to promote colon cancer screening through e-mail over the internet: lessons learned from a pilot study. Med Care. 2008;46(Suppl 1):S117–S122.
    1. Miller DP, Kimberly JR, Case LD, Wofford JL. Using a computer to teach patients about fecal occult blood screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):984–988. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0081.x.
    1. Ahlquist DA. Occult blood screening. Obstacles to effectiveness. Cancer. 1992;70:1259–1265. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19920901)70:3+<1259::AID-CNCR2820701511>;2-D.
    1. Sharma VK, Vasudeva R, Howden CW. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance practices by primary care physicians: results of a national survey. Am J Gatrolenterol. 2000;95(6):1551–1556. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.02093.x.
    1. Wender RC. Barriers to screening for colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2002;12:145–170. doi: 10.1016/S1052-5157(03)00064-3.
    1. Statistics Canada. Canadian Internet Use Survey. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. CANSIM table 358–0130. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. CANSIM table 358–0129. [ ]
    1. Statistics Canada. [ ]
    1. Sisler J, McCormack-Speak P. Bridging the gap between primary care and the cancer system. Canadian Family Physician. 2009;55(3):273–278.
    1. Christie J, O’Halloran P, Stevenson M. Planning a cluster randomized controlled trial: methodological issues. Nurs Res. 2009;58(2):128–134. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181900cb5.
    1. Hintze J. NCSS and PASS. Kaysville, Utah; 2001. (Number Cruncher Statistical Systems). [ ]
    1. Campbell MK, Thomsom S, Ramsay CR, MacLennan GS, Grimshaw JM. Sample size calculator for cluster randomized trials. Comput Biol Med. 2004;34:113–125. doi: 10.1016/S0010-4825(03)00039-8.

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner