Financial Incentives to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Randomized Control Trial

Evaluating colonoscopy quality by performing provider type

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Colonoscopy is an essential tool for screening, used as a primary approach and follow-up to an abnormal stool-based colorectal cancer screening result. Colonoscopy quality is often measured with 4 key indicators: bowel preparation, cecal intubation, mean withdrawal time, and adenoma detection. Colonoscopies are most often performed by gastroenterologists (GI), however, in rural and medically underserved areas, non-GI providers often perform colonoscopies. This study aims to evaluate the quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by non-GI practitioner, comparing their outcomes with those of GI providers.

METHODS

Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study population. Results for quality indicators were stratified by provider type and compared. Statistical significance was determined using a P value of less than .05 as the threshold for all comparisons; all P values were 2-sided.

RESULTS

No statistical difference was found when comparing performance by provider type. Median performance for gastroenterologists, general surgeons, and family medicine providers ranged from 98% to 100% for cecal intubation; 97.4% to 100% for bowel preparation; 57.4% to 88.9% for male adenoma detection rate; 47.7% to 62.13% for female adenoma detection rate; and 0:12:10 to 0:20:16 for mean withdrawal time. All provider types met and exceeded the goal metric for each of the quality indicators (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of this analysis, we can expect non-GI practitioner to perform colonoscopies with similar quality to GI practitioner given the performance outcomes for the key quality metrics.

What Happens When Payments End? Fostering Long-Term Behavior Change With Financial Incentives

Financial incentives are widely used to get people to adopt desirable behaviors. Many small landholders in developing countries, for example, receive multiyear payments to engage in conservation behaviors, and the hope is that they will continue to engage in these behaviors after the program ends. Although effective in the short term, financial incentives rarely lead to long-term behavior change because program participants tend to revert to their initial behaviors soon after the payments stop. In this article, we propose that four psychological constructs can be leveraged to increase the long-term effectiveness of financial-incentive programs: motivation, habit formation, social norms, and recursive processes. We review successful and unsuccessful behavior-change initiatives involving financial incentives in several domains: public health, education, sustainability, and conservation. We make concrete recommendations on how to implement the four above-mentioned constructs in field settings. Finally, we identify unresolved issues that future research might want to address to advance knowledge, promote theory development, and understand the psychological mechanisms that can be used to improve the effectiveness of incentive programs in the real world.

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

•

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.

•

We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.

•

The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.

•

Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.

•

BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Evaluating behavioral economic interventions for promoting cancer screening uptake and adherence in targeted populations: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions for promoting uptake of and adherence to cancer screening recommended by guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Cancer screening has been found to help reduce incidence of and mortality from advanced cancer. However, adherence to recommended cancer screening services is low in asymptomatic adults with average risk possibly due to systematic decision biases. The findings of this review will demonstrate whether interventions informed by behavioral economic insights can help improve uptake of and adherence to cancer screening.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will consider studies that meet the following inclusion criteria: experimental, quasi-experimental, and analytical observational studies that i) evaluate the effects of behavioral economic interventions in adults eligible for guideline-recommended cancer screening, and that ii) report the number/percentage of individuals who used screening services; number/percentage of individuals who completed screening recommended by guidelines; participant self-reported intentions, choice, and satisfaction regarding the use of screening services; detection rates of early-stage cancers; use of early intervention for cancers; and cancer-related mortality.

METHODS

A systematic literature search will be performed by one reviewer. After removing duplicates, two reviewers will independently screen and appraise eligible studies according to the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Five databases will be searched: CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Sources of gray literature and registered clinical trials will also be searched for potential studies. There will be no limits to publication date or language. Data synthesis will be conducted using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis where appropriate.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42021258370.

Financial incentives for bowel cancer screening: Results from a mixed methods study in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of bowel cancer screening is to test for signs of cancer before symptoms develop. Financial incentives are one potential method to increase participation rates. Few studies have tested incentives in relation to bowel screening in the United Kingdom (UK). The current research explored reactions to different financial incentives to participate in population-level bowel cancer screening in a UK sample.

DESIGN

An online mixed methods study. Recruitment was via a study recruitment website (https://prolific.ac/).

METHODS

499 participants (aged 60-74 years) completed a survey on invitations for population-level bowel cancer screening using different levels of financial incentives.

RESULT

Respondents were generally positive about the use of financial incentives. A £10 voucher was most frequently selected as the appropriate amount to incentivise screening participation. The current invitation method with no voucher was judged to be most acceptable but suggested to produce the lowest likelihood of others participating. Offering a £10 voucher that the NHS would not be charged for if not used was the second most acceptable invitation method. There were few differences between invitation methods on own perceived likelihood of participation in bowel screening. Offering a £10 voucher was seen as leading to the greatest likelihood of others participating in bowel screening. Findings were largely unaffected by participant demographics.

CONCLUSION

The use of small financial incentives to increase bowel cancer screening uptake was generally well received. Impacts of incentives on actual bowel screening rates in UK samples need to be established in the light of the current findings.

Screening and prevention of colorectal cancer

Mortality from colorectal cancer is reduced through screening and early detection; moreover, removal of neoplastic lesions can reduce cancer incidence. While understanding of the risk factors, pathogenesis, and precursor lesions of colorectal cancer has advanced, the cause of the recent increase in cancer among young adults is largely unknown. Multiple invasive, semi- and non-invasive screening modalities have emerged over the past decade. The current emphasis on quality of colonoscopy has improved the effectiveness of screening and prevention, and the role of new technologies in detection of neoplasia, such as artificial intelligence, is rapidly emerging. The overall screening rates in the US, however, are suboptimal, and few interventions have been shown to increase screening uptake. This review provides an overview of colorectal cancer, the current status of screening efforts, and the tools available to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer.

Addition of Financial Incentives to Mailed Outreach for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Although screening decreases incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Health-promoting financial incentives may increase uptake of cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of CRC screening.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 31, 2020. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms were used to identify published studies on the topic. The search strategy identified 835 studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were selected that involved adults older than 50 years who were eligible for CRC screening, who received either various forms of financial incentives along with mailed outreach or no financial incentives but mailed outreach and reminders alone, and who reported screening completion by using recommended tests at different time points. Observational or nonrandomized studies and a few RCTs were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Data were abstracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analysis and metaregression, and quality of evidence was appraised.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months of receiving the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives). Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (≤$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Adding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted.

The effect of deadlines on cancer screening completion: a randomized controlled trial

Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States. Although screening facilitates prevention and early detection and is one of the most effective approaches to reducing cancer mortality, participation is low—particularly among underserved populations. In a large, preregistered field experiment (n = 7711), we tested whether deadlines—both with and without monetary incentives tied to them—increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We found that all screening invitations with an imposed deadline increased completion, ranging from 2.5% to 7.3% relative to control (ps < .004). Most importantly, individuals who received a short deadline with no incentive were as likely to complete screening (9.7%) as those whose invitation included a deadline coupled with either a small (9.1%) or large declining financial incentive (12.0%; ps = .57 and .04, respectively). These results suggest that merely imposing deadlines—especially short ones—can significantly increase CRC screening completion, and may also have implications for other forms of cancer screening.

What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?

Screening reduces colorectal cancer mortality; however, this remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States and adherence to colorectal cancer screening falls far short of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable goal of 80%. Numerous studies have examined the effectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. Outreach is the active dissemination of screening outside of the primary care setting, such as mailing fecal blood tests to individuals' homes. Navigation uses trained personnel to assist individuals through the screening process. Patient education may take the form of brochures, videos, or websites. Provider education can include feedback about screening rates of patient panels. Reminders to healthcare providers can be provided by dashboards of patients due for screening. Financial incentives provide monetary compensation to individuals when they complete screening tests, either as fixed payments or via a lottery. Individual preference for specific screening strategies has also been examined in several trials, with a choice of screening strategies yielding higher adherence than recommendation of a single strategy.

Mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach for colorectal cancer screening: Summary of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored Summit

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) offers promise for increasing screening rates, but optimal strategies for implementation have not been well synthesized. In June 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a meeting of subject matter experts and stakeholders to answer key questions regarding mailed FIT implementation in the United States. Points of agreement included: 1) primers, such as texts, telephone calls, and printed mailings before mailed FIT, appear to contribute to effectiveness; 2) invitation letters should be brief and easy to read, and the signatory should be tailored based on setting; 3) instructions for FIT completion should be simple and address challenges that may lead to failed laboratory processing, such as notation of collection date; 4) reminders delivered to initial noncompleters should be used to increase the FIT return rate; 5) data infrastructure should identify eligible patients and track each step in the outreach process, from primer delivery through abnormal FIT follow-up; 6) protocols and procedures such as navigation should be in place to promote colonoscopy after abnormal FIT; 7) a high-quality, 1-sample FIT should be used; 8) sustainability requires a program champion and organizational support for the work, including sufficient funding and external policies (such as quality reporting requirements) to drive commitment to program investment; and 9) the cost effectiveness of mailed FIT has been established. Participants concluded that mailed FIT is an effective and efficient strategy with great potential for increasing colorectal cancer screening in diverse health care settings if more widely implemented.

Afterthoughts on colonoscopy. Was it that bad?

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer is among the top three most common cancers globally. In order to reduce the health burden, it is important to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening by understanding the barriers and facilitators encountered. There are numerous reports in the literature on the views of the general public on cancer screening. However, the experiences of colonoscopy patients are not as well studied. This paper maps their perceptions.

METHODS

Keyword searches for terms such as 'colorectal', 'colonoscopy' and 'qualitative' were conducted on 3 December 2019 in five databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Qualitative articles that quoted colonoscopy-experienced patients with no prior history of colorectal cancer were included for the thematic analysis. The systematic review was then synthesized according to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The major themes were distilled into three categories: pre-procedure, during and post-procedure. The factors identified in the pre-procedure phase include the troublesome bowel preparation, poor quality of information provided and the dynamics within a support network. Perceptions of pain, emotional discomfort and the role of providers mark the experience during the procedure. The receipt of results, opportunities given for discussion and finances relating to colonoscopy are important post-procedure events.

CONCLUSION

Understanding colorectal cancer screening behaviour is fundamental for healthcare providers and authorities to develop system and personal level changes for the improvement of colorectal cancer screening services. The key areas include patient comfort, the use of clearer instructional aids and graphics, establishing good patient rapport, and the availability of individualized options for sedation and the procedure.