Impact of Risk Assessment and Tailored versus Nontailored Risk Information on Colorectal Cancer Testing in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Development and cross-validation of a veterans mental health risk factor screen

BACKGROUND

VA primary care patients are routinely screened for current symptoms of PTSD, depression, and alcohol disorders, but many who screen positive do not engage in care. In addition to stigma about mental disorders and a high value on autonomy, some veterans may not seek care because of uncertainty about whether they need treatment to recover. A screen for mental health risk could provide an alternative motivation for patients to engage in care.

METHOD

Data from samples of veterans and traumatic injury survivors were analyzed to identify mental health risk factors that are characteristics of individuals or stressors or of post-trauma, post-deployment, or post-military service resources, experiences, or responses. Twelve risk factors were strongly related to PTSD (r > .50): current PTSD, depression, dissociation, negative thinking, and emotional lability symptoms, life stress, relationship stress, social constraints, and deployment experiences of a difficult environment, concerns about life and family, perceived threat, and moral injury. Items assessing each of these risk factors were selected and their validity to prospectively predict PTSD and/or depression 6 months later was assessed in a new sample of 232 VA primary care patients.

RESULTS

Twelve items assessing dissociation, emotional lability, life stress, and moral injury correctly classified 86% of those who later had elevated PTSD and/or depression symptoms (sensitivity) and 75% of those whose later symptoms were not elevated (specificity). Performance was also very good for 110 veterans who identified as members of ethnic/racial minorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Mental health status was prospectively predicted in VA primary care patients with high accuracy using a screen that is brief, easy to administer, score, and interpret, and fits well into VA's integrated primary care. When care is readily accessible, appealing to veterans, and not perceived as stigmatizing, information about mental health risk may result in higher rates of engagement than information about current mental disorder status.

Communicating risk to promote colorectal cancer screening: a multi-method study to test tailored versus targeted message strategies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal, partly due to poor communication about CRC risk. More effective methods are needed to educate patients, but little research has examined best practices for communicating CRC risk. This multi-method study tests whether tailoring CRC risk information increases screening intentions. Participants (N = 738) were randomized with a 2:2:1 allocation to tailored, targeted, and control message conditions. The primary outcome was intention to screen for CRC (yes/no). Additional variables include perceived message relevance, perceived susceptibility to CRC, and free-text comments evaluating the intervention. A chi-square test determined differences in the proportion of participants who intended to complete CRC screening by condition. A logistic-based path analysis explored mediation. Free-text comments were analyzed using advanced topic modeling analysis. CRC screening intentions were highest in the tailored intervention and significantly greater than control (P = 0.006). The tailored message condition significantly increased message relevance compared with control (P = 0.027) and targeted conditions (P = 0.002). The tailored condition also increased susceptibility (P < 0.001) compared with control, which mediated the relationship between the tailored condition and intention to screen (b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% confidence interval = 0.02, 0.09). The qualitative data reflect similar trends. The theoretical mechanisms and practical implications of tailoring health education materials about CRC risk are discussed.

Effect of Patient-Directed Messaging on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused in the US. Tailored message interventions have shown benefit for increasing screening uptake of mammography and Papanicolaou testing, but their role in CRC screening is less clear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of a tailored message telephone intervention prior to scheduling of a screening or surveillance colonoscopy and its effect on CRC screening completion rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted from July 2017 through August 2018 at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS), an urban academic medical center. Participants were asymptomatic patients aged 50 to 75 years who were eligible for CRC screening or surveillance, had been referred for colonoscopy, and did not have a scheduled colonoscopy appointment. Data analysis was conducted from January to September 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent block randomization in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 study arms. Participants in the usual care group were contacted via a mailed letter and instructed to call to schedule a colonoscopy. In the generic message group, participants were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a uniform, nontailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling. Participants in the tailored message group were contacted by telephone, completed an assessment, and received a tailored message encouraging colonoscopy scheduling based on their identified assessment cohort.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was colonoscopy completion rate within 120 days of enrollment. The secondary outcome was colonoscopy scheduling rate appointment within 120 days of enrollment.

RESULTS

A total of 600 participants (median [IQR] age, 56 [51-63] years; 373 women [62.2%]) were enrolled, including 200 participants randomized to usual care, 200 participants randomized to the generic message, and 200 participants randomized to the tailored message. The total sample included 12 Asian participants (2.0%), 324 Black participants (54.0%), and 227 White participants (37.8%), and 9 participants (1.5%) were of Latino or Hispanic ethnicity. Colonoscopy completion was significantly higher for both the tailored message group (69 participants [34.5%]) and the generic message group (64 participants [32.0%]) compared with the usual care group (37 participants [18.5%]) (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively). Scheduling rates were also significantly higher in both groups, with 106 participants (53.0%) in the tailored message group and 105 participants (52.5%) in the generic message group scheduling appointments, compared with 54 participants (27.0%) in the usual care arm (P < .001 for both).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this randomized clinical trial among individuals whose CRC screening was not up to date, both a tailored message intervention and a generic message intervention were significantly more effective at increasing colonoscopy scheduling and completion rates compared with usual care. These findings suggest that individualized health communications can increase individual motivation to obtain CRC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03310892.

Computer-tailored intervention increases colorectal cancer screening among low-income African Americans in primary care: Results of a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Although African Americans have the highest colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality rates of any racial group, their screening rates remain low.

STUDY DESIGN/PURPOSE

This randomized controlled trial compared efficacy of two clinic-based interventions for increasing CRC screening among African American primary care patients.

METHODS

African American patients from 11 clinics who were not current with CRC screening were randomized to receive a computer-tailored intervention (n = 335) or a non-tailored brochure (n = 358) designed to promote adherence to CRC screening. Interventions were delivered in clinic immediately prior to a provider visit. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models analyzed predictors of screening test completion. Moderators and mediators were determined using multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Significant effects of the computer-tailored intervention were observed for completion of a stool blood test (SBT) and completion of any CRC screening test (SBT or colonoscopy). The colonoscopy screening rate was higher among those receiving the computer-tailored intervention group compared to the nontailored brochure but the difference was not significant. Predictors of SBT completion were: receipt of the computer-tailored intervention; being seen at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center clinic; baseline stage of adoption; and reason for visit. Mediators of intervention effects were changes in perceived SBT barriers, changes in perceived colonoscopy benefits, changes in CRC knowledge, and patient-provider discussion. Moderators of intervention effects were age, employment, and family/friend recommendation of screening.

CONCLUSION

This one-time computer-tailored intervention significantly improved CRC screening rates among low-income African American patients. This finding was largely driven by increasing SBT but the impact of the intervention on colonoscopy screening was strong. Implementation of a CRC screening quality improvement program in the VA site that included provision of stool blood test kits and follow-up likely contributed to the strong intervention effect observed at that site. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00672828.

Outcomes associated with use of the Cancer Risk Intake System among primary care safety-net patients identified as needing colorectal cancer screening

•

Guideline-based CRC screening is low among average- and elevated-risk individuals.

•

Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) generates tailored CRC screening recommendations.

•

44% of elevated- and 90% of average-risk patients received guideline-based orders.

•

Only about half of elevated-risk group underwent guideline-concordant colonoscopy.

•

Half of the average-risk group received guideline-concordant screening.

Despite demonstrated primary and secondary prevention benefits, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is sub-optimal. We implemented the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) among a convenience sample of patients presenting for primary care in Dallas County safety-net clinics. CRIS, which assesses individuals’ CRC risks and generates guideline-based screening recommendations for them and their providers, had been found in a randomized trial to facilitate risk-based screening, compared to usual care. Here, of 924 patients ages ≥50 who used CRIS, 699 were identified as needing screening, with 39.2% needing colonoscopy rather than FIT. However, following use of CRIS and patients’ and providers’ receipt of guideline-concordant recommendations, 20.9% elevated-risk patients received no screening orders, only 44.1% received guideline-concordant colonoscopy orders, and less than half of these (48.4%) completed colonoscopy. Guideline-concordant screening orders were more common for average-risk patients (62.5% received orders for FIT and 26.6% for colonoscopy). However, like their elevated-risk counterparts who received screening orders, more than half of average-risk patients in each order group (52.3% for FIT and 52.8% for colonoscopy) did not complete screening. We found no correlates for receiving screening orders, but higher comorbidity scores were associated with less screening completion among the average-risk group. We had hoped CRIS would facilitate risk-based screening but, although orders for and receipt of colonoscopy were more common for elevated- than average-risk patients, they were still suboptimal in this clinical setting with a “FIT-first” strategy. A stronger intervention may be necessary to increase guideline-concordant recommendations and screening among patients 50 and older.

Current use and costs of electronic health records for clinical trial research: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) may support randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to describe the current use and costs of EHRs in RCTs, with a focus on recruitment and outcome assessment.

METHODS

This descriptive study was based on a PubMed search of RCTs published since 2000 that evaluated any medical intervention with the use of EHRs. Cost information was obtained from RCT investigators who used EHR infrastructures for recruitment or outcome measurement but did not explore EHR technology itself.

RESULTS

We identified 189 RCTs, most of which (153 [81.0%]) were carried out in North America and were published recently (median year 2012 [interquartile range 2009-2014]). Seventeen RCTs (9.0%) involving a median of 732 (interquartile range 73-2513) patients explored interventions not related to EHRs, including quality improvement, screening programs, and collaborative care and disease management interventions. In these trials, EHRs were used for recruitment (14 [82%]) and outcome measurement (15 [88%]). Overall, in most of the trials (158 [83.6%]), the outcome (including many of the most patient-relevant clinical outcomes, from unscheduled hospital admission to death) was measured with the use of EHRs. The per-patient cost in the 17 EHR-supported trials varied from US$44 to US$2000, and total RCT costs from US$67 750 to US$5 026 000. In the remaining 172 RCTs (91.0%), EHRs were used as a modality of intervention.

INTERPRETATION

Randomized controlled trials are frequently and increasingly conducted with the use of EHRs, but mainly as part of the intervention. In some trials, EHRs were used successfully to support recruitment and outcome assessment. Costs may be reduced once the data infrastructure is established.

Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.

OBJECTIVE

To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms included colorectal cancer and screening.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

At least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study's risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs).

RESULTS

The main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common form of cancer in men worldwide and the second most common in women. The purpose of this study was to determine both barriers established by primary health care providers (PHCPs) and barriers perceived by them and to produce solutions for achieving the desired results. A four-part questionnaire was administered to family physicians (FPs) and family health personnels (FHPs) in Samsun, Turkey on 01-15 May, 2016. Sixty-six percent of PHCPs were contacted. Data were evaluated as numbers and percentages, and statistical significance was analyzed using the Chi square and t tests. 478 PHCPs participated; 49.4 % were FPs and 50.6 % FHPs. Of the participants, 86.6 % stated that they performed CRC screening on patients. The level of participants knowing that screening should start at age 50 and conclude at age 70 was 49.7 %. The level of subjects requesting the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) at the correct intervals was 29.7 %, but only 6.9 % recommended colonoscopy at the correct intervals. Additionally, 18.2 % of subjects knew that the test used is immunochemical FOBT, and 60.5 % reported not using reminders. PHCPs' low levels of knowledge, awareness and advice compatible with guidelines concerning CRC screening may represent an obstacle to such screening. Barriers perceived by PHCPs include patients' inability to access definite medical information, deficiencies in the reminder system and patients' lack of interest in CRC screening. Additions to the screening program will be useful in overcoming barriers.

Recommendation of colorectal cancer testing among primary care patients younger than 50 with elevated risk

In the era of precision medicine, efforts are needed to identify and tailor screening recommendations among elevated-risk patients. Individuals younger than 50years are an important target population, as they comprise 15% of colorectal (CRC) cases and often present with more advanced disease than their 50+ counterparts. In this large study, 2470 patients ages 25-49 used a tablet-based program that assessed risks, matched risks with screening guidelines, and generated tailored printed guideline-concordant recommendations for patients and their providers. The tablet-based program identified 121 (4.9%) patients with risk factors warranting screening before age 50. Likelihood of risk warranting screening was greater for ages 40-49 than <40years (OR: 2.38), females than males (OR: 1.82), and African Americans (OR: 1.69) and non-Hispanic Whites (OR: 2.89) compared to Hispanics. Most common risk factors were family history of polyps (23.1%), personal history of inflammatory bowel disease (19.8%), and combined family history of CRC+polyps (18.2%). Receipt of guideline-concordant screening within 6months of identification was low, including only 5.3% of those who needed colonoscopy and 13.3% for whom colonoscopy or FIT was recommended. Although elevated-risk patients younger than 50years can be readily identified, more than notification is necessary to facilitate screening participation.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician

In recent years, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recognized as very important. The available data indicate that PCPs are not adequately following CRC screening guidelines because a number of factors have been identified as significant barriers to the proper application of CRC screening guidelines. These factors include lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy. Further positive engagement of PCPs with CRC screening is required to overcome these barriers and reach acceptable levels in screening rates. To meet the expectations of modern medicine, PCPs should not only be able to recommend occult blood testing or colonoscopy but also, under certain conditions, able to perform colonoscopy. In this review, the authors aim to provide the current knowledge of the role of PCPs in increasing the rate and successfully implementing a screening program for CRC by applying the relevant international guidelines.

Colonoscopy uptake for high-risk individuals with a family history of colorectal neoplasia: A multicenter, randomized trial of tailored counseling versus standard information

BACKGROUND

Colonoscopic screening is recommended for first-degree relatives of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) or colorectal adenomatous polyps (CAP) before the age of 60 years. This has the potential to reduce CRC-related morbidity and mortality, but uptake is currently inadequate.

METHODS

The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of standard information versus a nurse-led tailored intervention designed to promote uptake of colonoscopy screening by siblings of CRC or CAP patients. A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Digestive surgeons and gastroenterologists recruited index patients who developed CRC or CAP before the age of 60 years. All index patients received standard screening information for their siblings, in keeping with current guidelines. Centrally computerized randomization of index patients resulted in allocating all their siblings to the same group, intervention or control. The tailored intervention targeted the index patient first, to help them convey information to their siblings. The nurse then provided the siblings with tailored information based on their answers to a self-questionnaire which explored health behaviors, derived from psychosocial models of prevention. Then the siblings were given a personalized information leaflet to hand to their regular physician. The primary endpoint was the rate of documented colonoscopy performed in siblings within 1 year after diagnosis of the index patient. The intent-to-treat analysis included siblings who refused to participate in the study. Statistical analysis was adjusted for intrafamilial correlation.

RESULTS

A total of 304 siblings of 125 index patients were included: 160 in the intervention group and 144 in the control group. The rate of colonoscopy uptake among siblings was 56.3% in the intervention group and 35.4% in the control group (P = 0.0027). The respective rates after exclusion of refusals were 69.2% and 37.0% (P < 0.0001). More lesions were detected in the intervention group (1 invasive cancer and 11 advanced adenomas vs 5 advanced adenomas; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the effectiveness of a nurse-led tailored intervention designed to promote colonoscopy screening uptake by siblings of patients diagnosed with CRC or CAP before age 60 years. Such tailored interventions that also involve physicians should help to reduce CRC-related mortality.

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial

Assess whether receipt of tailored printouts generated by the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) – a touch-screen computer program that collects data from patients and generates printouts for patients and physicians – results in more reported patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening than receipt of non-tailored information.

Cluster-randomized trial, randomized by physician, with data collected via CRIS prior to visit and 2-week follow-up telephone survey among 623 patients.

Patients aged 25–75 with upcoming primary-care visits and eligible for, but currently non-adherent to CRC screening guidelines.

Patient-reported discussions with providers about CRC risk and testing.

Tailored recipients were more likely to report patient-physician discussions about personal and familial risk, stool testing, and colonoscopy (all p < 0.05). Tailored recipients were more likely to report discussions of: chances of getting cancer (+ 10%); family history (+ 15%); stool testing (+ 9%); and colonoscopy (+ 8%) (all p < 0.05).

CRIS is a promising strategy for facilitating discussions about testing in primary-care settings.

•

Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) intervention is a touch-screen computer program.

•

Patients use CRIS to input CRC risk factor data before primary care appointments.

•

CRIS generates tailored printouts with guideline-based screening recommendations.

•

Our randomized trial compared receipt of CRIS tailored v. non-tailored printouts.

•

CRIS tailored group reported more patient-MD discussion of CRC risk and testing.

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care

BACKGROUND

The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.