» Articles » PMID: 28873160

Effect of Physician Notification Regarding Nonadherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening on Patient Participation in Fecal Immunochemical Test Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview
Journal JAMA
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Sep 6
PMID 28873160
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Importance: Increasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that have implemented colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs.

Objective: To determine whether providing general practitioners (GPs) a list of patients who are nonadherent to CRC screening enhances patient participation in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).

Design, Setting, And Participants: A 3-group, cluster-randomized study was conducted from July 14, 2015, to July 14, 2016, on the west coast of France, with GPs in 801 practices participating and involving adult patients (50-74 years) who were at average risk of CRC and not up-to-date with CRC screening. The final follow-up date was July 14, 2016.

Interventions: General practitioners were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 496 received a list of patients who had not undergone CRC screening (patient-specific reminders group, 10 476 patients), 495 received a letter describing region-specific CRC screening adherence rates (generic reminders group, 10 606 patients), and 455 did not receive any reminders (usual care group, 10 147 patients).

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 year after the intervention.

Results: Among 1482 randomized GPs (mean age, 53.4 years; 576 women [38.9%]), 1446 participated; of the 33 044 patients of these GPs (mean age, 59.7 years; 17 949 women [54.3%]), follow-up at 1 year was available for 31 229 (94.5%). At 1 year, 24.8% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.2%) of patients in the specific reminders group, 21.7% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in the generic reminders group, and 20.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-21.8%) in the usual care group participated in the FIT screening. The between-group differences were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the generic reminders group, 4.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the usual care group, and 1.1% (95% CI, -0.6% to 2.8%) for generic reminders group vs the usual care group.

Conclusions And Relevance: Providing French GPs caring for adults at average risk of CRC with a list of their patients who were not up-to-date with their CRC screening resulted in a small but significant increase in patient participation in FIT screening at 1 year compared with patients who received usual care. Providing GPs with generic reminders about regional rates of CRC screening did not increase screening rates compared with usual care.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515344.

Citing Articles

Effect of a Feedback Visit and a Clinical Decision Support System Based on Antibiotic Prescription Audit in Primary Care: Multiarm Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jeanmougin P, Larramendy S, Fournier J, Gaultier A, Rat C J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e60535.

PMID: 39693139 PMC: 11694052. DOI: 10.2196/60535.


Negative predictive value of fecal immunochemical testing in significant bowel disease screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Junhai Z, Fei L, Jixiang Z, Huabing X, Cheng T, Weiguo D Int J Surg. 2024; 111(1):1182-1190.

PMID: 38920326 PMC: 11745644. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001844.


Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

Verbunt E, Newman G, Creagh N, Milley K, Emery J, Kelaher M Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2024; 25:e12.

PMID: 38345096 PMC: 10894721. DOI: 10.1017/S1463423623000713.


Why is early detection of colon cancer still not possible in 2023?.

Tonini V, Zanni M World J Gastroenterol. 2024; 30(3):211-224.

PMID: 38314134 PMC: 10835528. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i3.211.


Breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a decision aid on mammography screening uptake: study protocol.

Hild S, Teigne D, Ferrat E, Banaszuk A, Berquet K, Lebon A Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1128467.

PMID: 37168386 PMC: 10165111. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1128467.


References
1.
Holme O, Bretthauer M, Fretheim A, Odgaard-Jensen J, Hoff G . Flexible sigmoidoscopy versus faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (9):CD009259. PMC: 9365065. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009259.pub2. View

2.
Brotons C, Bjorkelund C, Bulc M, Ciurana R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Jurgova E . Prevention and health promotion in clinical practice: the views of general practitioners in Europe. Prev Med. 2005; 40(5):595-601. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.07.020. View

3.
Birkenfeld S, Belfer R, Chared M, Vilkin A, Barchana M, Lifshitz I . Factors affecting compliance in faecal occult blood testing: a cluster randomized study of the faecal immunochemical test versus the guaiac faecal occult test. J Med Screen. 2011; 18(3):135-41. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2011.010147. View

4.
Lee J, Reis V, Liu S, Conn L, Groessl E, Ganiats T . Improving fecal occult blood testing compliance using a mailed educational reminder. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(11):1192-7. PMC: 2771232. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-009-1087-5. View

5.
Cole S, Smith A, Wilson C, Turnbull D, Esterman A, Young G . An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2007; 14(2):73-5. DOI: 10.1258/096914107781261927. View