User login
Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation have robust evidence to show they improve colorectal cancer screening rates, results of a meta-analysis show.
Both strategies increased screening rates by about 20 percentage points, according to results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This finding suggests that broad implementation of either of these interventions could bring the current national screening rate of 63% close to the national goal of 80%,” wrote Michael K. Dougherty, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors in the report.
Active distribution of fecal blood tests (FBTs) was tested in 17 of the studies in the main meta-analysis, which was limited to 73 trials that the researchers said were at low to medium risk of bias.
Most of those studies looked at mailing FBTs, though a few studies tied distribution to a patient encounter. Compared with usual care, FBT outreach was associated with increased screening, with a risk ratio of 2.26, Dr. Dougherty and his coauthors reported.
Patient navigation interventions, tested in 16 studies of low to medium bias risk, were usually done by health care professionals, though in a few cases, they involved lay or peer navigators.
Navigation was also associated with increased screening when compared with usual care, the investigators found. The risk ratio was 2.01, which increased to 2.33 for interventions that included some additional component more than a standardized reminder or mailing, such as a video decision aid or intensive automated reminders.
Patient reminders and patient education strategies were also associated with increased screening in the meta-analysis, both with risk ratios of 1.20.
Incorporating clinician reminders or academic detailing appeared to improve the net benefit of interventions, according to the investigators.
“Clinicians, health administrators, and policy makers should consider how to incorporate patient navigation, FBT outreach, and/or clinician prompts into their health care settings and sociocultural contexts,” Dr. Dougherty and his colleagues wrote in their report.
Multicomponent interventions appeared to have an edge over single-component interventions, they added.
In general, the aim of FBT outreach is to improve test distribution and thus overcome structural barriers to screening, the study authors wrote. Similarly, patient navigation is designed to help guide patients through the complex health care system and avoid barriers to care, which may be sociocultural, logistical, or educational.
Major funding for the study came from the University Cancer Research Fund of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. One coinvestigator reported institutional grant funding from Pfizer unrelated to the current study.
SOURCE: Dougherty MK et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.
This systematic review and meta-analysis is an “ambitious project” that should inform decision makers, according to Beverly B. Green, MD, MPH.
“We can now safely say that, in general, no more studies are needed to demonstrate that outreach with fecal blood tests and patient navigation increase colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Green wrote in an associated commentary.
Now, research should turn to other areas of colorectal cancer control, such as how to actually implement screening strategies and potentially adapt them for specific populations, she added. The effects of these interventions may be different in disadvantaged populations that have low screening rates and worse outcomes of colorectal cancer.
“Knowing that an intervention is effective in a highly controlled research setting does not guarantee local or widespread adoption,” she wrote. The interventions need to be “feasible, acceptable, and compatible” with existing fast-paced and complicated processes that provide day-to-day health care, and with the resources available to clinicians and organizations.
Dr. Green is with Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Her comments appeared in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4627) . She reported no conflicts of interest.
This systematic review and meta-analysis is an “ambitious project” that should inform decision makers, according to Beverly B. Green, MD, MPH.
“We can now safely say that, in general, no more studies are needed to demonstrate that outreach with fecal blood tests and patient navigation increase colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Green wrote in an associated commentary.
Now, research should turn to other areas of colorectal cancer control, such as how to actually implement screening strategies and potentially adapt them for specific populations, she added. The effects of these interventions may be different in disadvantaged populations that have low screening rates and worse outcomes of colorectal cancer.
“Knowing that an intervention is effective in a highly controlled research setting does not guarantee local or widespread adoption,” she wrote. The interventions need to be “feasible, acceptable, and compatible” with existing fast-paced and complicated processes that provide day-to-day health care, and with the resources available to clinicians and organizations.
Dr. Green is with Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Her comments appeared in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4627) . She reported no conflicts of interest.
This systematic review and meta-analysis is an “ambitious project” that should inform decision makers, according to Beverly B. Green, MD, MPH.
“We can now safely say that, in general, no more studies are needed to demonstrate that outreach with fecal blood tests and patient navigation increase colorectal cancer screening,” Dr. Green wrote in an associated commentary.
Now, research should turn to other areas of colorectal cancer control, such as how to actually implement screening strategies and potentially adapt them for specific populations, she added. The effects of these interventions may be different in disadvantaged populations that have low screening rates and worse outcomes of colorectal cancer.
“Knowing that an intervention is effective in a highly controlled research setting does not guarantee local or widespread adoption,” she wrote. The interventions need to be “feasible, acceptable, and compatible” with existing fast-paced and complicated processes that provide day-to-day health care, and with the resources available to clinicians and organizations.
Dr. Green is with Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute in Seattle. Her comments appeared in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine (doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4627) . She reported no conflicts of interest.
Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation have robust evidence to show they improve colorectal cancer screening rates, results of a meta-analysis show.
Both strategies increased screening rates by about 20 percentage points, according to results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This finding suggests that broad implementation of either of these interventions could bring the current national screening rate of 63% close to the national goal of 80%,” wrote Michael K. Dougherty, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors in the report.
Active distribution of fecal blood tests (FBTs) was tested in 17 of the studies in the main meta-analysis, which was limited to 73 trials that the researchers said were at low to medium risk of bias.
Most of those studies looked at mailing FBTs, though a few studies tied distribution to a patient encounter. Compared with usual care, FBT outreach was associated with increased screening, with a risk ratio of 2.26, Dr. Dougherty and his coauthors reported.
Patient navigation interventions, tested in 16 studies of low to medium bias risk, were usually done by health care professionals, though in a few cases, they involved lay or peer navigators.
Navigation was also associated with increased screening when compared with usual care, the investigators found. The risk ratio was 2.01, which increased to 2.33 for interventions that included some additional component more than a standardized reminder or mailing, such as a video decision aid or intensive automated reminders.
Patient reminders and patient education strategies were also associated with increased screening in the meta-analysis, both with risk ratios of 1.20.
Incorporating clinician reminders or academic detailing appeared to improve the net benefit of interventions, according to the investigators.
“Clinicians, health administrators, and policy makers should consider how to incorporate patient navigation, FBT outreach, and/or clinician prompts into their health care settings and sociocultural contexts,” Dr. Dougherty and his colleagues wrote in their report.
Multicomponent interventions appeared to have an edge over single-component interventions, they added.
In general, the aim of FBT outreach is to improve test distribution and thus overcome structural barriers to screening, the study authors wrote. Similarly, patient navigation is designed to help guide patients through the complex health care system and avoid barriers to care, which may be sociocultural, logistical, or educational.
Major funding for the study came from the University Cancer Research Fund of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. One coinvestigator reported institutional grant funding from Pfizer unrelated to the current study.
SOURCE: Dougherty MK et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.
Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation have robust evidence to show they improve colorectal cancer screening rates, results of a meta-analysis show.
Both strategies increased screening rates by about 20 percentage points, according to results of the systematic review and meta-analysis reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.
“This finding suggests that broad implementation of either of these interventions could bring the current national screening rate of 63% close to the national goal of 80%,” wrote Michael K. Dougherty, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his coauthors in the report.
Active distribution of fecal blood tests (FBTs) was tested in 17 of the studies in the main meta-analysis, which was limited to 73 trials that the researchers said were at low to medium risk of bias.
Most of those studies looked at mailing FBTs, though a few studies tied distribution to a patient encounter. Compared with usual care, FBT outreach was associated with increased screening, with a risk ratio of 2.26, Dr. Dougherty and his coauthors reported.
Patient navigation interventions, tested in 16 studies of low to medium bias risk, were usually done by health care professionals, though in a few cases, they involved lay or peer navigators.
Navigation was also associated with increased screening when compared with usual care, the investigators found. The risk ratio was 2.01, which increased to 2.33 for interventions that included some additional component more than a standardized reminder or mailing, such as a video decision aid or intensive automated reminders.
Patient reminders and patient education strategies were also associated with increased screening in the meta-analysis, both with risk ratios of 1.20.
Incorporating clinician reminders or academic detailing appeared to improve the net benefit of interventions, according to the investigators.
“Clinicians, health administrators, and policy makers should consider how to incorporate patient navigation, FBT outreach, and/or clinician prompts into their health care settings and sociocultural contexts,” Dr. Dougherty and his colleagues wrote in their report.
Multicomponent interventions appeared to have an edge over single-component interventions, they added.
In general, the aim of FBT outreach is to improve test distribution and thus overcome structural barriers to screening, the study authors wrote. Similarly, patient navigation is designed to help guide patients through the complex health care system and avoid barriers to care, which may be sociocultural, logistical, or educational.
Major funding for the study came from the University Cancer Research Fund of the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. One coinvestigator reported institutional grant funding from Pfizer unrelated to the current study.
SOURCE: Dougherty MK et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Key clinical point: Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation improved colorectal cancer screening rates.
Major finding: Compared with usual care, fecal blood test outreach and navigation were associated with increased screening, with risk ratios of 2.26 and 2.01, respectively.
Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis including 73 randomized trials at low to medium risk of bias.
Disclosures: Major funding was provided by the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. One study author reported institutional grant funding unrelated to the study.
Source: Dougherty MK et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 15. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.