Reference | Setting | Participants | Intervention vs control | Outcome | Participation/ coverage, % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boguradzka et al119 | Opportunistic primary TC screening Poland | 600 consecutive subjects 50–65 years of age visiting of primary care physician (PCP) group practice for routine medical consultation | Information leaflet group: information leaflet about the National Colonoscopy Screening Programme (n=296) Counselling group: face-to-face counselling with recommendation of TC screening (n=299) Predisposing–reinforcing factors | TC preformed within the National Programme | Counselling group: 47.0% (N=296) Information leaflet group: 13.7% (N=299) OR (counselling vs leaflet) 5.33 (95% CI 3.55 to 8.00) |
Clouston et al120 | 39 medical clinic clusters; 79 fee-for-service family physicians USA | Average risk subjects aged 50–74 years | Family physicians (N=39) in the control group: standard clinical practice Family physicians (N=40) in the intervention group: offer of patient aid during the physician visit. including nurse-managed telephone support line Predisposing–reinforcing factors | FOBT completion rate | Control group: 56.9% (N=1209) Intervention group: 66.6% (N=1165) OR=1.47 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.03) |
Cohen-Cline et al121 | Managed care organisation USA | 13 279 men and women aged 50–81 years who were not adherent to CRC screening | Intervention group=interactive voice response (IVR) to encourage CRC screening Control group=usual care Predisposing–enabling factors | Any CRC screening at 6 and 12 months | At 12 months Intervention group: 16.6% (N=8005) Control group: 14.1% (N=3005) HR: 1.20; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.34 |
Davis et al122 | Community clinic USA | Subjects, aged 50–85 years, with a negative initial FOBT | Enhanced care arm: Patients waiting for a scheduled appointment with their provider received a recommendation for CRC screening and a FOBT kit with a stamped return envelope Literacy-informed education arm brief structured education intervention by a clinic based research assistant addressing risk factors of CRC and screening benefits, using a pamphlet written on a fifth grade level and short video Nurse support arm: A designated clinic nurse provided the literacy informed education and followed up by telephone using motivational interviewing Predisposing–enabling–reinforcing | Completion of a repeat FOBT within 12–18 months of the initial negative FOBT | Return of both initial+repeat FOBT Enhanced care: 37.6% (38/101) Literacy informed education 33.1% (52/157) Nurse support 59.1% (120/203) Return of initial FOBT; repeat FOBT not returned year 2 Enhanced care: 62.4% (63/101) Education: 66.9% (105/157) Nurse support: 40.9% (83/203) OR Nurse support vs literacy education: 1.46 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.06) OR Nurse support vs enhanced care 1.45 (95% CI 0.93 to 2.26) |
Neter et al123 | HMO-insured members USA | 27 555 men and women aged 50–74 who had performed the test a year earlier | Experimental group: Test kit+leaflet containing an 'if-then' condition and planning instructions of when, where and how Control group: standard care receiving regular FOBT instructions Enabling factors | Adherence at 6 months | Experimental group: 71.4% (N=13 677) Control group: 67.9% (N=13 878) (p=0.0001) |
Green et al124 | 21 primary care medical centres of a non-profit healthcare delivery system USA | 4675 adults aged 50–73 years overdue for CRC screening | Usual care: Electronic health record-linked mailings ('automated') Automated plus telephone assistance ('assisted') Automated and assisted+nurse navigation to testing completion or refusal ('navigated') Predisposing–enabling–reinforcing factors | The proportion of participants up-to-date with CRC screening | CRC screening in both years usual care (N=1166) 26.3% (95% CI 23.4% to 29.2%) Automated group (N=1169) 50.8% (95% CI 47.3% to 54.4%) Assisted group (N=1159) 57.5% (95% CI 54.5% to 60.6%) Navigated group (N=1170 64.7% (95% CI 62.5% to 67.0%) Any CRC screening usual care: 57.4% (95% CI 53.5% to 61.3%) Automated group=72.5% (95% CI 69.9% to 75.1%); Assisted group=77.9% (95% CI 75.2% to 80.6%); Navigated group=82.6% (95% CI 80.2% to 85.1%) p<0.001 for all pairwise comparisons |
Jandorf et al125 | Primary care clinic USA | African-American (AA) average risk subjects over 50 years overdue for CRC screening 589 referred, 532 enrolled, 350 navigated | Peer-PN: peer-patient navigation: AA community members trained in navigation with personal experience Pro-PN: pro-patient navigation: AA professional healthcare provider navigation—culturally targeted Standard: CRCs facts, appointment and reminder calls Predisposing factors | Screening colonoscopy | Peer patient: 74.0% (134/181) Pro-patient: 76.4%; (94/123) STD: 80.4% (37/46) No significant difference |
Myers et al126 | Primary care practices USA | Primary care patients (N=945) aged 50–79 years having visited one of the participating practices within the previous two years, not compliant with American Cancer Society CRC screening guidelines, reached by phone, providing consent to the study | All subjects who accepted enrolment were mailed a $20 gift card Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group Standard Intervention (SI) group Usual care control group Enabling–reinforcing factors | Any CRC screening at 6–12 months | Any screening at 6 months TNI group: 37.5% (117/312) SI group: 32.6% (103/316) Control group: 12.0% (38/317) SI group vs control: OR: 3.69 (95% CI 2.42 to 5.64) TNI group vs control OR 3.60 (95% CI 3.02 to 7.02) Any screening at 12 months TNI group: 42.6% (133/312) SI group: 36.4% (115/316) Control group: 18.0% (57/317) SI group vs control: OR: 2.68 (95% CI 1.83 to 3.90) TNI group vs control OR: 3.48 (95% CI 2.39 to 5.07) |
Weinberg et al127 | Routine obstetrics/gynaecology visit two large healthcare systems and University Clinic USA | 904 unscreened women ≥50 years at average risk for CRC from the scheduling databases of obstetrics and gynaecology practices | Control (usual care) group Web group Health communications about CRC screening delivered via web (in a high-monitoring or low-monitoring Cognitive Social Information Processing—attentional style model) Print group Health communications about CRC screening delivered via print channels (in a high- or low-monitoring Cognitive Social Information Processing. attentional style model) Predisposing factors | Any CRC screening within 12 months | 4 months Web=12.2% (42/345)
Web=18.6%(64/345)
|
Schroy et al128 | Urban, academic hospital and community healthcentre USA | 825 asymptomatic, average-risk subjects aged 50–75 years due for CRC screening Attending a routine office visit with their primary care providers | Decision aid +YDR (personalised risk assessment tool) with feedback (n=280) Decision aid alone group (n=269) Control arm (n=76) Predisposing–reinforcing factors | Any CRC screening within 12 months | Decision aid alone: 43.1% (116/269) Decision aid +YDR 37.1% (104/280) Control: 34.8% (96/276) OR Decision aid alone vs control 1.48 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.10) Decision aid +YDR vs control 1.13 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.61) |
Menon et al129 | Primary care clinics USA | Group 1: 178 Group 2: 168 Group 3: 169 Participants aged 50 years or older; no personal or family history of CRC; overdue for screening | Group 1 (MI): counselling calls 2 weeks, 1 month and 6 months after intervention+telephone-based motivational interview with discussion about beliefs and stages of readiness about CRC screening Group 2 (TI): counselling calls 2 weeks, 1 month, and 6 months, post-intervention+6 tailored health counselling (standardised phone survey, computer programme with tailored messages, and phone call by a trained interventionist) Group 3: usual care Predisposing–reinforcing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 18.5% (33/178) Group 2: 23.8% (40/168) Group 3: 11.8% (20/169) OR TC vs control: 2.2 (1.2 to 4.0) MI vs control:1.6 (0.9 to 2.9) |
Vernon et al130 | Large multispecialty medical group practice USA | Participants aged 50–70 years, who had never been screened for CRC or who were overdue for CRC screening | Group 1: tailored group (narrative videos, list of common concerns about CRC screening and patient–physician discussion) Group 2: website programme (educational programme developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Group 3: survey only (usual care) Predisposing factors | Any CRC screening within 6 months | Group 1: 27.6% (N=413) Group 2: 31.2% (N=398) Group 3: 30.0% (N=413) |
Simon et al131 | Health plan USA | 20 938 Subjects with no screening | Group 1: automated telephone with information for CRC screening Group 2: usual care Predisposing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 30.6% (N=10 432) Group 2: 30.4% (N=10 506) p=0.76 Adjusted OR=1.01; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07 |
Costanza et al132 | Community-based primary care providers practices USA | 2448 subjects overdue for TC | Group 1: educational brochure+tailored computer assisted phone counselling by trained interviewers Group 2: usual care Predisposing reinforcing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 26.0% (144/553) Group 2: 19.0% (236/1242) p<0.0001 |
Myers et al133 | Large urban practice USA | 1546 primary care practice patients | Group 1: mailing of FOBT kit+invitation lettered letter+information booklet+reminder Group 2: mailing of FOBT kit+invitation lettered letter+information booklet+reminder+ tailored message pages Group 3: mailing of FOBT kit+invitation lettered letter+information booklet+reminder+ tailored message pages+reminder phone call Group 4: usual care Predisposing–reinforcing–enabling factors | FOBT screening after intervention | Group 1: 45.7% (N=387) Group 2: 43.8% (N=380) Group 3: 48.4% (N=386) Group 4: 32.6% (N=387) OR (1 vs 4) 1.68 (95% CI 1.25 to 2.53) OR (2 vs 4) 1.58 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.12) OR (3 vs 1) 1.91(95% CI 1.42 to 2.56) |
Dietrich et al134 | Community and migrant health centres USA | Group 1: 696 Group 2: 694 Women aged 50–69 years overdue for screening | Group 1: educational brochure+4 support calls by prevention care managers (providing motivational support, sending FOBT kits, arranging transportation) Group 2: single telephone call answering questions about screening and recommending to order screening Predisposing–reinforcing–enabling factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 63% (43%—FOBT) (N=696) Group 2: 50% (31%—FOBT) (N=694) Difference 0.13 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.18) |
Lipkus et al135 | Men and women aged 50–75 receiving healthcare benefits through a workers' fund USA | Women and men aged 50–75 years overdue for CRC screening | Group 1: non-tailored information brochure about CRC risk factors Group 2: non-tailored information: 1+lifestyle information and occupational risk factors Group 3: tailored information: 1+tailored information highlighting the risk factors increasing personal CRC risk Group 4: tailored information 3+counselling about lifestyles and occupational factors on CRC risk Predisposing factors | FOBT screening | Group 1 (N=216) 60% (year 1) 52% (year 2) 41% (year 3) Group 2 (N=212) 60% (year 1) 54% (year 2) 59% (year 3) Group 3 (N=218) 68% (year 1) 57% (year 2) 49% (year 3) Group 4 (N=214) 74% (year 1) 59% (year 2) 51% (year 3) |
Marcus et al136 | CANCER telephone serviceUSA | Callers to the CIS (Cancer Information Services) aged 50+ years, eligible for CRC screening | Group 1: educational message encouraging screening+single untailored mailed booklet Group 2: educational message encouraging screening+single tailored mailed booklet Group 3: educational message encouraging screening+multiple tailored print materials using information at baseline mailed at different intervals Group 4: educational message encouraging screening+multiple tailored print materials using information at baseline and at 6 months, mailed at different intervals Predisposing–reinforcing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 42.0% (N=380) Group 2: 44.0% (N=377) Group 3: 51.0% (N=424) Group 4: 48.0% (N=419) p=0.05 |
Zapka et al137 | Primary care practices USA | 938 aged 50–74 years who were scheduled for an upcoming physical examination, had no personal history of CRC, and were eligible for lower-endoscopy screening according to current guidelines | Group 1: mailed CRC educational videotape Group 2: usual care Predisposing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 55.1% (N=450) Group 2: 55.3% (N=488) |
Pignone et al138 | Community primary care practices USA | Group 1: 125 Group 2: 124 Subjects overdue for screening | Group 1: 11 min video about CRC screening and colour-coded educational brochure Group 2: generic brochure on automobile safety Predisposing factors | Any CRC screening | Group 1: 36.8 (N=125) Group 2: 22.6 (N=124) Difference 14.2 (95% CI 3.0 to 25.4) |
CRC, colorectal cancer; FOBT, faecal occult blood test; HMO, Health Maintenance Organization; TC, colonoscopy; YDR, Your Disease Risk.