Cancer · 2018
Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brenner Alison T, Rhode Jewels, Yang Jeff Y, Baker Dana, Drechsel Rebecca, Plescia Marcus, Reuland Daniel S, Wroth Tom, Wheeler Stephanie B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries.
METHODS: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return.
RESULTS: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
METHODS: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return.
RESULTS: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.