Randomized, Controlled Trial of a Multimodal Intervention to Improve Cancer Screening Rates in a Safety-Net Primary Care Practice
- First Online:
- 490 Downloads
Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.
To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.
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.
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.
The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.
Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.
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.
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 WORDSbreast neoplasms colorectal neoplasms cancer screening healthcare disparities
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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