Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review published in Issue 5, 2011. Worldwide, cervical cancer is the fourth commonest cancer affecting women. High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is causative in 99.7% of cases. Other risk factors include smoking, multiple sexual partners, the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases and immunosuppression. Primary prevention strategies for cervical cancer focus on reducing HPV infection via vaccination and data suggest that this has the potential to prevent nearly 90% of cases in those vaccinated prior to HPV exposure. However, not all countries can afford vaccination programmes and, worryingly, uptake in many countries has been extremely poor. Secondary prevention, through screening programmes, will remain critical to reducing cervical cancer, especially in unvaccinated women or those vaccinated later in adolescence. This includes screening for the detection of pre-cancerous cells, as well as high-risk HPV. In the UK, since the introduction of the Cervical Screening Programme in 1988, the associated mortality rate from cervical cancer has fallen. However, worldwide, there is great variation between countries in both coverage and uptake of screening. In some countries, national screening programmes are available whereas in others, screening is provided on an opportunistic basis. Additionally, there are differences within countries in uptake dependent on ethnic origin, age, education and socioeconomic status. Thus, understanding and incorporating these factors in screening programmes can increase the uptake of screening. This, together with vaccination, can lead to cervical cancer becoming a rare disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 6, 2020. MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS databases up to June 2020. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible, the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis using standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Comprehensive literature searches identified 2597 records; of these, 70 met our inclusion criteria, of which 69 trials (257,899 participants) were entered into a meta-analysis. The studies assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, lay health worker involvement, counselling and risk factor assessment. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, there was moderate-certainty evidence to suggest that invitations appear to be an effective method of increasing uptake compared to control (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49 to 1.96; 141,391 participants; 24 studies). Additional analyses, ranging from low to moderate-certainty evidence, suggested that invitations that were personalised, i.e. personal invitation, GP invitation letter or letter with a fixed appointment, appeared to be more successful. More specifically, there was very low-certainty evidence to support the use of GP invitation letters as compared to other authority sources' invitation letters within two RCTs, one RCT assessing 86 participants (RR 1.69 95% CI 0.75 to 3.82) and another, showing a modest benefit, included over 4000 participants (RR 1.13, 95 % CI 1.05 to 1.21). Low-certainty evidence favoured personalised invitations (telephone call, face-to-face or targeted letters) as compared to standard invitation letters (RR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11 to 1.21; 27,663 participants; 5 studies). There was moderate-certainty evidence to support a letter with a fixed appointment to attend, as compared to a letter with an open invitation to make an appointment (RR 1.61, 95 % CI 1.48 to 1.75; 5742 participants; 5 studies). Low-certainty evidence supported the use of educational materials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54; 63,415 participants; 13 studies) and lay health worker involvement (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.65; 4330 participants; 11 studies). Other less widely reported interventions included counselling, risk factor assessment, access to a health promotion nurse, photo comic book, intensive recruitment and message framing. It was difficult to deduce any meaningful conclusions from these interventions due to sparse data and low-certainty evidence. However, having access to a health promotion nurse and attempts at intensive recruitment may have increased uptake. One trial reported an economic outcome and randomised 3124 participants within a national screening programme to either receive the standard screening invitation, which would incur a fee, or an invitation offering screening free of charge. No difference in the uptake at 90 days was found (574/1562 intervention versus 612/1562 control, (RR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.03). The use of HPV self-testing as an alternative to conventional screening may also be effective at increasing uptake and this will be covered in a subsequent review. Secondary outcomes, including cost data, were incompletely documented. The majority of cluster-RCTs did not account for clustering or adequately report the number of clusters in the trial in order to estimate the design effect, so we did not selectively adjust the trials. It is unlikely that reporting of these trials would impact the overall conclusions and robustness of the results. Of the meta-analyses that could be performed, there was considerable statistical heterogeneity, and this should be borne in mind when interpreting these findings. Given this and the low to moderate evidence, further research may change these findings. The risk of bias in the majority of trials was unclear, and a number of trials suffered from methodological problems and inadequate reporting. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of an unclear or high risk of bias with regards to allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data and other biases.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. Low-certainty evidence showed lay health worker involvement amongst ethnic minority populations may increase screening coverage, and there was also support for educational interventions, but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies were from developed countries and so the relevance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), is unclear. Overall, the low-certainty evidence that was identified makes it difficult to infer as to which interventions were best, with exception of invitational interventions, where there appeared to be more reliable evidence.

Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women

Screening for colorectal cancer is cost-effective, but many U.S. women are nonadherent, and the cost-effectiveness of web-based tailored screening interventions is unknown. A randomized controlled trial, COBRA (Increasing Colorectal and Breast Cancer Screening), was the source of information for the economic evaluation. COBRA compared screening among a Usual Care group to: (i) tailored Phone Counseling intervention; (ii) tailored Web intervention; and (iii) tailored Web + Phone intervention groups. A sample of 1,196 women aged 50 to 75 who were nonadherent to colorectal cancer screening were recruited from Indiana primary care clinics during 2013 to 2015. Screening status was obtained through medical records at recruitment with verbal confirmation at consent, and at 6-month follow-up via medical record audit and participant self-report. A "best sample" analysis and microcosting from the patient and provider perspectives were applied to estimate the costs and effects of the interventions. Statistical uncertainty was analyzed with nonparametric bootstrapping and net benefit regression analysis. The per participant cost of implementing the Phone Counseling, Web-based, and Web + Phone Counseling interventions was $277, $314, and $336, respectively. The incremental cost per person screened for the Phone Counseling compared with no intervention was $995, while the additional cost of Web and the Web + Phone compared with Phone Counseling did not yield additonal persons screened. Tailored Phone Counseling significantly increased colorectal cancer screening rates compared with Usual Care. Tailored Web interventions did not improve the screening rate compared with the lower cost Phone Counseling intervention.

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.Patient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.Patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).The impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.

Metrics for the systematic evaluation of community-based outreach

There is an extensive literature on the use of community-based outreach for breast health programs. While authors often report that outreach was conducted, there is rarely information provided on the effort required for outreach. This paper seeks to establish a template for the systematic evaluation of community-based outreach. We describe three types of outreach used by our project, explain our evaluation measures, present data on our outreach efforts, and demonstrate how these metrics can be used to inform a project's decisions about which types of outreach are most effective.

Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence

Background

Despite the demonstrated need to increase screening mammography utilization and strong evidence that mail and telephone outreach to women can increase screening, most managed care organizations have not adopted comprehensive outreach programs. The uncertainty about optimum strategies and cost effectiveness have retarded widespread acceptance. While 70% of women report getting a mammogram within the prior 2 years, repeat mammography rates are less than 50%. This 5-year study is conducted though a Central Massachusetts healthcare plan and affiliated clinic. All womenhave adequate health insurance to cover the test.

Methods/Design

This randomized study compares 3 arms: reminder letter alone; reminder letter plus reminder call; reminder letter plus a second reminder and booklet plus a counselor call. All calls provide women with the opportunity to schedule a mammogram in a reasonable time. The invention period will span 4 years and include repeat attempts. The counselor arm is designed to educate, motivate and counsel women in an effort to alleviate PCP burden.

All women who have been in the healthcare plan for 24 months and who have a current primary care provider (PCP) and who are aged 51-84 are randomized to 1 of 3 arms. Interventions are limited to women who become ≥18 months from a prior mammogram. Women and their physicians may opt out of the intervention study.

Measurement of completed mammograms will use plan billing records and clinic electronic records. The primary outcome is the proportion of women continuously enrolled for ≥24 months who have had ≥1 mammogram in the last 24 months. Secondary outcomes include the number of women who need repeat interventions. The cost effectiveness analysis will measure all costs from the provider perspective.

Discussion

So far, 18,509 women aged 51-84 have been enrolled into our tracking database and were randomized into one of three arms. At baseline, 5,223 women were eligible for an intervention. We anticipate that the outcome will provide firm data about the maximal effectiveness as well as the cost effectiveness of the interventions both for increasing the mammography rate and the repeat mammography rate.

Trial registration

http://clinicaltrials.gov/NCT01332032

Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening

BACKGROUND

World-wide, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Increasing the uptake of screening, alongside increasing informed choice is of great importance in controlling this disease through prevention and early detection.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at women, to increase the uptake, including informed uptake, of cervical cancer screening.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases up to March 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to increase uptake/informed uptake of cervical cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the data were synthesised in a meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials met our inclusion criteria. These trials assessed the effectiveness of invitational and educational interventions, counselling, risk factor assessment and procedural interventions. Heterogeneity between trials limited statistical pooling of data. Overall, however, invitations appear to be effective methods of increasing uptake. In addition, there is limited evidence to support the use of educational materials. Secondary outcomes including cost data were incompletely documented so evidence was limited. Most trials were at moderate risk of bias. Informed uptake of cervical screening was not reported in any trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence to support the use of invitation letters to increase the uptake of cervical screening. There is limited evidence to support educational interventions but it is unclear what format is most effective. The majority of the studies are from developed countries and so the relevance to developing countries is unclear.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted versus tailored interventions to promote mammography screening among women military veterans in the United States

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an economic evaluation of mammography promotion interventions in a population-based, nationally representative sample of 5500 women veterans.

METHODS

Women 52 years and older were randomly selected from the National Registry of Women Veterans and randomly assigned to a survey-only control group and two intervention groups that varied in the extent of personalization (tailored vs. targeted). Effectiveness measures were the prevalence of at least one self-reported post-intervention mammogram and two post-intervention mammograms 6-15 months apart. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the incremental cost per additional person screened. Uncertainty was examined with sensitivity analysis and bootstrap simulation.

RESULTS

The targeted intervention cost $25 per person compared to $52 per person for the tailored intervention. About 27% of the cost was incurred in identifying and recruiting the eligible population. The percent of women reporting at least one mammogram were .447 in the control group, .469 in the targeted group, and .460 in the tailored group. The ICER was $1116 comparing the targeted group to the control group (95% confidence interval (CI)=$493 to dominated). The tailored intervention was dominated (more costly and less effective) by the targeted intervention.

CONCLUSION

Decision-makers should consider effectiveness evidence and the full recruitment and patient time costs associated with the implementation of screening interventions when making investments in mammography screening promotion programs. Identification and recruitment of eligible participants add substantial costs to outreach screening promotion interventions. Tailoring adds substantial cost to the targeted mammography promotion strategy without a commensurate increase in effectiveness. Although cost-effectiveness has been reported to be higher for some in-reach screening promotion interventions, a recent meta-analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in the effect sizes of published health-plan based intervention studies for repeat mammography (i.e., some studies reported null effects compared with control groups).

Cultural tailoring for the promotion of hepatitis B screening in Turkish Dutch: a protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B virus infection (HBV) is an important health problem in the Turkish community in the Netherlands, and promotion of screening for HBV in this risk group is necessary. An individually tailored intervention and a culturally tailored intervention have been developed to promote screening in first generation 16-40 year old Turkish immigrants. This paper describes the design of the randomized controlled trial, which will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the two tailored internet interventions as compared to generic online information on HBV, and to assess the added value of tailoring on socio-cultural factors.

METHODS/DESIGN

A cluster randomized controlled trial design, in which we invite all Rotterdam registered inhabitants born in Turkey, aged 16-40 (n = 10,000), to visit the intervention website is used. A cluster includes all persons living at one house address. The clusters are randomly assigned to either group A, B or C. On the website, persons eligible for testing will be selected through a series of exclusion questions and will then continue in the randomly assigned intervention group. Group A will receive generic information on HBV. Group B will receive individually tailored information related to social-cognitive determinants of screening. Group C will receive culturally tailored information which, next to social-cognitive factors, addresses cultural factors related to screening. Subsequently, participants may obtain a laboratory form, with which they can be tested free of charge at local health centres. The main outcome of the study is the percentage of eligible persons tested for HBV through to participation in one of the three groups. Measurements of the outcome behaviour and its determinants will be at baseline and five weeks post-intervention.

DISCUSSION

This trial will provide information on the effectiveness of a culturally tailored internet intervention promoting HBV-screening in first generation Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands, aged 16-40. The results will contribute to the evidence base for culturally tailored (internet) interventions in ethnic minority populations. An effective intervention will lead to a reduction of the morbidity and mortality due to HBV in this population. This may not only benefit patients, but also help reduce health inequalities in western countries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The Netherlands National Trial Register NTR 2394.

Cost-effectiveness of guided self-help treatment for recurrent binge eating

OBJECTIVE

Adoption of effective treatments for recurrent binge-eating disorders depends on the balance of costs and benefits. Using data from a recent randomized controlled trial, we conducted an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of a cognitive-behavioral therapy guided self-help intervention (CBT-GSH) to treat recurrent binge eating compared to treatment as usual (TAU).

METHOD

Participants were 123 adult members of an HMO (mean age = 37.2 years, 91.9% female, 96.7% non-Hispanic White) who met criteria for eating disorders involving binge eating as measured by the Eating Disorder Examination (C. G. Fairburn & Z. Cooper, 1993). Participants were randomized either to treatment as usual (TAU) or to TAU plus CBT-GSH. The clinical outcomes were binge-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); total societal cost was estimated using costs to patients and the health plan and related costs.

RESULTS

Compared to those receiving TAU only, those who received TAU plus CBT-GSH experienced 25.2 more binge-free days and had lower total societal costs of $427 over 12 months following the intervention (incremental CEA ratio of -$20.23 per binge-free day or -$26,847 per QALY). Lower costs in the TAU plus CBT-GSH group were due to reduced use of TAU services in that group, resulting in lower net costs for the TAU plus CBT group despite the additional cost of CBT-GSH.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support CBT-GSH dissemination for recurrent binge-eating treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of increasing access to mammography through mobile mammography for older women

OBJECTIVES

To compare the costs of mobile and stationary mammography and examine the incremental cost-effectiveness of using mobile mammography to increase screening rates.

DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using effectiveness data from a randomized clinical trial and modeling of costs associated with the mobile mammography intervention.

SETTING

The trial involved 60 community-based meal sites, senior centers, and clubs.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred ninety-nine individuals were enrolled in the study, of whom 463 had outcome data available for analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Costs were calculated for stationary and mobile mammography, as well as costs due to differences in technology and film versus digital. Incremental cost-effectiveness (cost per additional screen) was modeled, and sensitivity analysis was performed by altering efficiency (throughput) and effectiveness based on subgroup data from the randomized trial.

RESULTS

The estimated annual costs were $435,162 for a stationary unit, $539,052 for a mobile film unit, and $456, 392 for a mobile digital unit. Assuming mobile units are less efficient (50% annual volume), the cost per screen was $41 for a stationary unit, $86 for a mobile film unit, and $102 for a mobile digital unit. The incremental cost per additional screen were $207 for a mobile film unit and $264 for a mobile digital unit over a stationary unit.

CONCLUSION

Although mobile mammography is a more effective way to screen older women, the absolute cost per screen of mobile units is higher, whereas the reimbursement is no different. Financial barriers may impede the widespread use of this approach.

The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: a pilot controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice.

METHODS

We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94.

CONCLUSION

A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening.

Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of a Low-Intensity Patient-Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening

Purpose

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is the most underused evidence-based cancer screening test in the United States. Few studies have reported the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening promotional efforts. In a recent randomized controlled trial, a patient-directed intervention for average-risk patients who had been referred for screening colonoscopy led to a 12% increase in CRC screening rates. The objective of this secondary analysis is to assess the cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Patients and Methods

Patients in the intervention arm received a customized mailed brochure that included a reminder to schedule a screening colonoscopy and general information about CRC, the importance of CRC screening, and how to prepare for the procedure. The end point was completion of screening colonoscopy. The costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of this patient-directed intervention were derived. Sensitivity analyses were based on varying the costs of labor and supplies.

Results

Rates of CRC screening for the intervention (n = 386 patients) versus control (n = 395) arms were 71% and 59%, respectively (P = .001). The total cost of the intervention was $1,927 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $43 per additional patient screened ($38 to $47 in a sensitivity analysis).

Conclusion

An intervention based on mailing a customized brochure to patients who were referred for a screening colonoscopy improved CRC screening rates at a university-based general medicine clinic. This intervention was comparable in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to a similar recently reported low-intensity patient-directed CRC screening intervention, and markedly more affordable and cost-effective than a previously reported physician-directed CRC screening promotion intervention.

Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: a meta-analytic review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of tailored interventions, designed to reach one specific person based on her unique characteristics, for promoting mammography use.

METHOD

This systematic review used meta-analytic techniques to aggregate the effect size of 28 studies published from 1997 through 2005. Potential study-level moderators of outcomes (sample, intervention, and methodological characteristics) were also examined.

RESULTS

A small but significant aggregate odds ratio effect size of 1.42 indicated that women exposed to tailored interventions were significantly more likely to get a mammogram (p<0.001). The type of population recruited and participants' pre-intervention level of mammography adherence did not significantly influence this effect. Tailored interventions that used the Health Belief Model and included a physician recommendation produced the strongest effects. Interventions delivered in person, by telephone, or in print were similarly effective. Finally, defining adherence as a single recent mammogram as opposed to regular or repeated mammograms yielded higher effect sizes.

CONCLUSION

Tailored interventions, particularly those that employ the Health Belief Model and use a physician recommendation, are effective in promoting mammography screening. Future investigations should strive to use more standardized definitions of tailoring and assessments of mammography outcomes.

Improving colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved: a pilot study within a federally qualified health center

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening rates remain low, especially among low-income and racial/ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE

We pilot-tested a physician-directed strategy aimed at improving rates of recommendation and patient colorectal cancer screening completion at 1 federally qualified health center serving low-income, African-American and Hispanic patients. Colonoscopy was specifically targeted.

DESIGN

Single arm, pretest-posttest design.

SETTING

Urban.

PATIENTS

154 screening-eligible, yet nonadherent primary care patients receiving care at an urban, federally qualified health center.

INTERVENTION

1) manually tracking screening-eligible patients, 2) mailing patients a physician letter and brochure before medical visits, 3) health literacy training to help physicians improve their communication with patients to work to resolution, and 4) establishing a "feedback loop" to routinely monitor patient compliance.

MEASUREMENT

Chart review of whether patients received a physician recommendation for screening, and completion of any colorectal cancer screening test 12 months after intervention. Physicians recorded patients' qualitative reasons for noncompliance, and a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis for screening promotion was also conducted.

RESULTS

The baseline screening rate was 11.5%, with 31.6% of patients having received a recommendation from their physician. At 1-year follow-up, rates of screening completion had increased to 27.9 percent (p < .001), and physician recommendation had increased to 92.9% (p < .001). Common reasons for nonadherence included patient readiness (60.7%), competing health problems (11.9%), and fear or anxiety concerning the procedure (8.3%). The total cost for implementing the intervention was $4,676 and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the intervention was $106 per additional patient screened by colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention appears to be a feasible means to improve colorectal cancer screening rates among patients served by community health centers. However, more attention to patient decision making and education may be needed to further increase screening rates.

The state of cost-effectiveness analysis in American managed care

In 1996, the US Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published detailed recommendations for the conduct and use of cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of medical technologies. These recommendations were expected to promote the use of CEA to inform the resource allocation decisions of a diverse audience including, among others, American managed care organizations. Yet, nearly 10 years later, the limited explicit use of CEA in the USA remains a prominent discussion topic, with few signs of resolution. Its limited use within managed care is especially striking given the industry's stated interest in efficient healthcare and historically unstable finances in the face of continually rising healthcare costs.

Costs and Cost Effectiveness of a Health Care Provider–Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans

Purpose

Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider–directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention.

Methods

Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention.

Results

Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to $196 per additional veteran screened.

Conclusion

An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.