Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 41–49

Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Multimodal Intervention to Improve Cancer Screening Rates in a Safety-Net Primary Care Practice

  • Samantha Hendren
  • Paul Winters
  • Sharon Humiston
  • Amna Idris
  • Shirley X. L. Li
  • Patricia Ford
  • Raymond Specht
  • Stephen Marcus
  • Michael Mendoza
  • Kevin Fiscella
Article

ABSTRACT

Background

Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.

Objective

To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.

Design

Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.

Subjects

All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients’ ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.

Intervention

The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.

Main Measures

Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.

Key Results

Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 185) or usual care (n = 181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p = 0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p = 0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.

Conclusions

A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.

KEY WORDS

breast neoplasms colorectal neoplasms cancer screening healthcare disparities 

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Lees KA, Wortley PM, Coughlin SS. Comparison of racial/ethnic disparities in adult immunization and cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29:404–411.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ward E, Jemal A, Cokkinides V, et al. Cancer disparities by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004;54:78–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jerant AF, Fenton JJ, Franks P. Determinants of racial/ethnic colorectal cancer screening disparities. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1317–1324.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clegg LX, Reichman ME, Miller BA, et al. Impact of socioeconomic status on cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis: selected findings from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: National Longitudinal Mortality Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20:417–435.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spadea T, Bellini S, Kunst A, Stirbu I, Costa G. The impact of interventions to improve attendance in female cancer screening among lower socioeconomic groups: a review. Prev Med. 2010;50:159–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holden DJ, Jonas DE, Porterfield DS, Reuland D, Harris R. Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:668–676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Michielutte R, Sharp PC, Foley KL, et al. Intervention to increase screening mammography among women 65 and older. Health Educ Res. 2005;20:149–162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Earp JA, Eng E, O’Malley MS, et al. Increasing use of mammography among older, rural African American women: results from a community trial. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:646–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Phillips CE, Rothstein JD, Beaver K, Sherman BJ, Freund KM, Battaglia TA. Patient navigation to increase mammography screening among inner city women. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:123–129.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lasser KE, Murillo J, Lisboa S, et al. Colorectal cancer screening among ethnically diverse, low-income patients: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:906–912.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Varkey AB, Manwell LB, Williams ES, et al. Separate and unequal: clinics where minority and nonminority patients receive primary care. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:243–250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wells KJ, Luque JS, Miladinovic B, et al. Do community health worker interventions improve rates of screening mammography in the United States? A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:1580–1598.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sequist TD, Zaslavsky AM, Marshall R, Fletcher RH, Ayanian JZ. Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:364–371.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, Halloran SP, Mant D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105:475–480.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mosen DM, Feldstein AC, Perrin N, et al. Automated telephone calls improved completion of fecal occult blood testing. Med Care. 2010;48:604–610.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simon SR, Zhang F, Soumerai SB, et al. Failure of automated telephone outreach with speech recognition to improve colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:264–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tseng DS, Cox E, Plane MB, Hla KM. Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical cancer screening: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:563–568.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stone EG, Morton SC, Hulscher ME, et al. Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:641–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kempe KL, Shetterly SM, France EK, Levin TR. Automated phone and mail population outreach to promote colorectal cancer screening. Am J Manage Care. 2012;18:370–378.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed NU, Haber G, Semenya KA, Hargreaves MK. Randomized controlled trial of mammography intervention in insured very low-income women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1790–1798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiscella K, Yosha A, Hendren SK, et al. Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:280.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS. Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:749–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoerger TJ, Ekwueme DU, Miller JW, et al. Estimated effects of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on breast cancer mortality. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:397–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liles EG, Perrin N, Rosales AG, et al. Change to FIT increased CRC screening rates: evaluation of a US screening outreach program. Am J Manage Care. 2012;18:588–595.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fiscella K, Humiston S, Hendren S, et al. A multimodal intervention to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a safety-net practice. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011;103:762–768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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;10:412–417.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1990.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:106–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu MJ, Hawk H, Gershman ST, et al. The effects of a National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on social disparities in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Massachusetts. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16:27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bach PB, Pham HH, Schrag D, Tate RC, Hargraves JL. Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:575–584.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen JJ, Wan TT, Perlin JB. An exploration of the complex relationship of socioecologic factors in the treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in disadvantaged populations. Health Serv Res. 2001;36:711–732.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fiscella K, Epstein RM. So much to do, so little time: care for the socially disadvantaged and the 15-minute visit. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1843–1852.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shankaran V, McKoy JM, Dandade N, et al. Costs and cost-effectiveness of a low-intensity patient-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5248–5253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vernon SW, McQueen A, Tiro JA, del Junco DJ. Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:1023–1039.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fiscella K, Humiston S, Hendren S, et al. Eliminating disparities in cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results: what will it take? J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2011;22(1):83–100.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samantha Hendren
    • 2
  • Paul Winters
    • 3
  • Sharon Humiston
    • 4
  • Amna Idris
    • 3
  • Shirley X. L. Li
    • 5
  • Patricia Ford
    • 3
  • Raymond Specht
    • 3
  • Stephen Marcus
    • 3
  • Michael Mendoza
    • 1
  • Kevin Fiscella
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and DentistryRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Department of Family MedicineHighland HospitalRochesterUSA
  4. 4.Department of PediatricsChildren’s Mercy Hospitals and ClinicsKansasUSA
  5. 5.Department of Community and Preventive MedicineUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and DentistryRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations