Effect of Sequential or Active Choice for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Shivan J Mehta, Vikranth Induru, David Santos, Catherine Reitz, Timothy McAuliffe, Charles Orellana, Kevin G Volpp, David A Asch, Chyke A Doubeni, Shivan J Mehta, Vikranth Induru, David Santos, Catherine Reitz, Timothy McAuliffe, Charles Orellana, Kevin G Volpp, David A Asch, Chyke A Doubeni

Abstract

Importance: Colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options.

Objective: To investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach.

Design, setting, and participants: Three-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening.

Interventions: Eligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test.

Results: In total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively.

Conclusions and relevance: There was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mehta reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute. Dr Volpp reported being a principal at the behavioral economics consulting firm VAL Health; having received consulting income from CVS Caremark and research funding from Humana, CVS Caremark, Discovery (South Africa), Hawaii Medical Services Association, Oscar, and Weight Watchers; and receiving grants or personal fees from the National Institute on Aging, CVS Caremark, Humana, Vitality/Discovery, Hawaii Medical Services Association, Oscar, and VAL Health. Dr Asch reported being a principal at the behavioral economics consulting firm VAL Health and receiving personal fees and other support from VAL Health. Dr Doubeni reported being a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. CONSORT Diagram of Randomized Clinical…
Figure 1.. CONSORT Diagram of Randomized Clinical Trial to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening
Some patients were excluded for multiple reasons. CONSORT indicates Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; CRC, colorectal cancer.
Figure 2.. CRC Screening Completion at 4…
Figure 2.. CRC Screening Completion at 4 Months by Study Arm
Error bars are 95% CI. CRC indicates colorectal cancer.

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):-. doi:10.3322/caac.21442
    1. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. . Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood: Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(19):1365-1371. doi:10.1056/NEJM199305133281901
    1. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. ; PLCO Project Team . Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(25):2345-2357. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1114635
    1. Doubeni CA, Corley DA, Quinn VP, et al. . Effectiveness of screening colonoscopy in reducing the risk of death from right and left colon cancer: a large community-based study. Gut. 2018;67(2):291-298. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312712
    1. White A, Thompson TD, White MC, et al. . Cancer screening test use: United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(8):201-206. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a1
    1. Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. . Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(7):1016-1030. doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.174
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. ; US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement [published corrections appear in JAMA. 2016;316(5):545 and 2017;317(21):2239]. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564-2575.
    1. Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, et al. . Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(4):250-281. doi:10.3322/caac.21457
    1. Green BB, Wang CY, Anderson ML, et al. . An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 pt 1):301-311. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-5-201303050-00002
    1. Mehta SJ, Jensen CD, Quinn VP, et al. . Race/ethnicity and adoption of a population health management approach to colorectal cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(11):1323-1330. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3792-1
    1. Gupta S, Halm EA, Rockey DC, et al. . Comparative effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test outreach, colonoscopy outreach, and usual care for boosting colorectal cancer screening among the underserved: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(18):1725-1732.
    1. Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, et al. . A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007;110(9):2083-2091. doi:10.1002/cncr.23022
    1. Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, et al. . Evaluation of interventions intended to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1645-1658. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637
    1. Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, et al. . Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):575-582. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332
    1. Segnan N, Senore C, Andreoni B, et al. ; SCORE2 Working Group–Italy . Randomized trial of different screening strategies for colorectal cancer: patient response and detection rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):347-357. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji050
    1. Multicentre Australian Colorectal-Neoplasia Screening (MACS) Group A comparison of colorectal neoplasia screening tests: a multicentre community-based study of the impact of consumer choice. Med J Aust. 2006;184(11):546-550.
    1. Liang PS, Wheat CL, Abhat A, et al. . Adherence to competing strategies for colorectal cancer screening over 3 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(1):105-114. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.367
    1. Senore C, Ederle A, Benazzato L, et al. . Offering people a choice for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2013;62(5):735-740. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301013
    1. Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(13):1340-1344. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb071595
    1. Mehta SJ, Khan T, Guerra C, et al. . A randomized controlled trial of opt-in versus opt-out colorectal cancer screening outreach. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(12):1848-1854. doi:10.1038/s41395-018-0151-3
    1. Loewenstein G, Brennan T, Volpp KG. Asymmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors. JAMA. 2007;298(20):2415-2417. doi:10.1001/jama.298.20.2415
    1. Mehta SJ, Asch DA. How to help gastroenterology patients help themselves: leveraging insights from behavioral economics. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(5):711-714. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.02.022
    1. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453-458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
    1. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR. When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;79(6):995-1006. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995
    1. Schwartz B. The tyranny of choice. Sci Am. 2004;290(4):70-75. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0404-70
    1. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF, Schmeichel BJ, Twenge JM, Nelson NM, Tice DM. Making choices impairs subsequent self-control: a limited-resource account of decision making, self-regulation, and active initiative. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2008;94(5):883-898. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883
    1. Johnson EJ, Goldstein D. Medicine: do defaults save lives? Science. 2003;302(5649):1338-1339. doi:10.1126/science.1091721
    1. Chapman GB, Li M, Colby H, Yoon H. Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. JAMA. 2010;304(1):43-44. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.892
    1. Asch DA, Ziolek TA, Mehta SJ. Misdirections in informed consent: impediments to health care innovation. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1412-1414. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1707991
    1. Mehta SJ, Feingold J, Vandertuyn M, et al. . Active choice and financial incentives to increase rates of screening colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(5):1227-1229.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.07.015
    1. Mehta SJ, Pepe RS, Gabler NB, et al. . Effect of financial incentives on patient use of mailed colorectal cancer screening tests: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e191156. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1156
    1. Yudin MH, Moravac C, Shah RR. Influence of an “opt-out” test strategy and patient factors on human immunodeficiency virus screening in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(1):81-86. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000267497.39041.06

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere