Moderators of the effectiveness of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening through mailed fecal immunochemical test kits: results from a pragmatic randomized trial

Elizabeth A O'Connor, William M Vollmer, Amanda F Petrik, Beverly B Green, Gloria D Coronado, Elizabeth A O'Connor, William M Vollmer, Amanda F Petrik, Beverly B Green, Gloria D Coronado

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain suboptimal, particularly in low-income and underserved populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) may overcome common barriers to screening; however, the effect of mailed FIT kits may differ across important subpopulations. The goal of the current study was to examine sociodemographic and health-related factors that moderate the effect of an intervention of automated direct mail of FIT kits at health clinics serving low-income populations.

Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study, a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial to increase uptake of CRC screening in patients seen at federally qualified health centers. The intervention involved tools embedded in the electronic medical records to enable participating clinics to mail FIT kits and related materials to eligible participants. We examined the rate of FIT completion by potential moderating characteristics using electronic health record data supplemented by the American Community Survey and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Geographic Variation datasets, linked via geocoding to patients' addresses. All patients aged 50-75 seen in participating health clinics who were eligible for CRC screening were included.

Results: Although not always statistically significant, we saw a consistent pattern of increased FIT return rates among intervention participants compared to control participants across all subgroups studied, with incidence rate ratios (IRRs) generally ranging from 1.25 to 1.50. FIT completion in the intervention group ranged from 15 and 20% across subpopulations, typically three to six percentage points higher than the control group participants. The only moderator with a statistically significant interaction was race: persons of Asian descent showed a twofold response to the intervention (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] = 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 3.00).

Conclusions: Response to a mailed FIT intervention was generally consistent across a wide range of individual and neighborhood-level patient characteristics, including typically underserved patients and those in low-resource communities.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01742065. Registered on 5 December 2012.

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Disparities; Fecal immunochemical test; Prevention; Screening.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT Flowchart of the STOP CRC study

References

    1. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. U.S. Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool, based on November 2018 submission data (1999-2016): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute; , June 2019.
    1. National Vital Statistics System. QuickStats: age-adjusted death rates for top five causes of cancer death, by race/hispanic Ethnicity—United States, 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65:989.
    1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Davidson KW, Epling JW, Jr, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–2575. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5989.
    1. Maciosek MV, Coffield AB, Edwards NM, Flottemesch TJ, Goodman MJ, Solberg LI. Priorities among effective clinical preventive services: results of a systematic review and analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(1):52–61. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.012.
    1. Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, Naber SK, Doria-Rose VP, Pabiniak C, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2595–2609. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.6828.
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy people 2020 topics and objectives: cancer. Washington D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. .
    1. National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable . Tools & resources – 80% by 2018. 2016.
    1. Centers for Disease Control Prevention Cancer screening - United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(3):41–45.
    1. May FP, Yang L, Corona E, Glenn BA, Bastani R. Disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the United States before and after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019. 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.09.008.
    1. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(4):339–359. doi: 10.1007/s10552-007-9100-y.
    1. Brittain K, Murphy VP. Sociocultural and health correlates related to colorectal cancer screening adherence among urban African Americans. Cancer Nurs. 2015;38(2):118–124. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000157.
    1. Katz ML, Reiter PL, Young GS, Pennell ML, Tatum CM, Paskett ED. Adherence to multiple cancer screening tests among women living in Appalachia Ohio. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24(10):1489–1494. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0369.
    1. Ricardo-Rodrigues I, Jiménez-García R, Hernández-Barrera V, Carrasco-Garrido P, Jiménez-Trujillo I, López-de-Andrés A. Adherence to and predictors of participation in colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood testing in Spain, 2009-2011. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24(4):305–312. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000088.
    1. Baker DW, Brown T, Buchanan DR, Weil J, Balsley K, Ranalli L, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1235–1241. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.2352.
    1. Coronado GD, Golovaty I, Longton G, Levy L, Jimenez R. Effectiveness of a clinic-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program for underserved Hispanics. Cancer. 2011;117(8):1745–1754. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25730.
    1. Gupta S, Halm EA, Rockey DC, Hammons M, Koch M, Carter E, 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. Hendren S, Winters P, Humiston S, Idris A, Li SX, Ford P, et al. Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(1):41–49. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2506-1.
    1. Jean-Jacques M, Kaleba EO, Gatta JL, Gracia G, Ryan ER, Choucair BN. Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(5):412–417. doi: 10.1370/afm.1381.
    1. Sequist TD, Franz C, Ayanian JZ. Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 2010;48(6):553–557. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbd8eb.
    1. Singal AG, Gupta S, Tiro JA, Skinner CS, McCallister K, Sanders JM, et al. Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system. Cancer. 2016;122(3):456–463. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29770.
    1. Singal AG, Gupta S, Skinner CS, Ahn C, Santini NO, Agrawal D, et al. Effect of colonoscopy outreach vs fecal immunochemical test outreach on colorectal cancer screening completion: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(9):806–815. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11389.
    1. Liang PS, Wheat CL, Abhat A, Brenner AT, Fagerlin A, Hayward RA, 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. Jensen CD, Corley DA, Quinn VP, Doubeni CA, Zauber AG, Lee JK, et al. Fecal immunochemical test program performance over 4 rounds of annual screening: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(7):456–463. doi: 10.7326/M15-0983.
    1. Schlichting JA, Mengeling MA, Makki NM, Malhotra A, Halfdanarson TR, Klutts JS, et al. Veterans’ continued participation in an annual fecal immunochemical test mailing program for colorectal cancer screening. J Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(4):494–497. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.04.140241.
    1. Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Vollmer WM, Taplin SH, Keast EM, Fields S, et al. Effectiveness of a mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach program in community health clinics: the STOP CRC cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1174–1181. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3629.
    1. Coronado GD, Vollmer WM, Petrik A, Taplin SH, Burdick TE, Meenan RT, et al. Strategies and opportunities to STOP colon cancer in priority populations: design of a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(2):344–349. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2014.06.006.
    1. Vollmer WM, Green BB, Coronado GD. Analytic challenges arising from the STOP CRC trial: pragmatic solutions for pragmatic problems. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2015;3(1):1200.
    1. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–1139. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000182534.19832.83.
    1. United States Census Bureau . American Community Survey (ACS) 2017.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare geographic variation. [updated 07/30/2015, 01/27/2017]. .
    1. United States Census Bureau . Glossary. 2017.
    1. World Bank Group . GINI index (World Bank estimate) 2017.
    1. US Bureau of Labor Statistics . Databases, tables & calculators by subject. 2018.
    1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Population with tertiary education (indicator) 2018. 2018.
    1. US Census Bureau . Income and earnings summary measures by selected characteristics: 2013 and 2014. 2018.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Emergency department visits. 2018.
    1. van Hoorn R, Tummers M, Booth A, Gerhardus A, Rehfuess E, Hind D, et al. The development of CHAMP: a checklist for the appraisal of moderators and predictors. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0451-0.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться