Financial incentives, in the amount of $5 or $10 offered in exchange for responding to mailed invitation to complete FIT, do not impact CRC screening completion.

BACKGROUND: For colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to improve survival, patients with an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) must follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy. Adherence to follow-up is low and patientlevel barriers for suboptimal adherence have yet to be explored. OBJECTIVE: To characterize barriers for non-completion of diagnostic colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT reported by under-and uninsured patients receiving care in a safety-net health system. DESIGN: A longitudinal, cohort study of CRC screening outreach to 8565 patients using mailed FIT kits. Patients with abnormal FIT results received telephonic navigation to arrange for a no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. PATIENTS: Adults aged 50-64 years receiving care at a North Texas safety-net health system. APPROACH: Descriptive analyses characterized the patient sample and reasons for lack of follow-up after abnormal FIT over the 3-year outreach program. Thematic qualitative analyses characterized reasons for lack of follow-up with a colonoscopy after the abnormal FIT. KEY RESULTS: Of 689 patients with an abnormal FIT, 45% (n = 314) did not complete a follow-up colonoscopy. Among the 314 non-completers, 184 patients reported reasons for not completing a follow-up colonoscopy included health insurance-related challenges (38%), comorbid conditions (37%), social barriers such as transportation difficulties and lack of social support (29%), concerns about FIT/colonoscopy process (12%), competing life priorities (12%), adverse effects of bowel preparation (3%), and poor health literacy (3%). Among the 314 non-completers, 131 patients did not report a barrier, as 51% reported that that had completed a previous colonoscopy in the past 10 years, 10% refused with no reason, and 10% were never reached by phone.

No abstract

Background: Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. We tested the impact of offering financial incentives for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion annually for 3 years. Methods: Patients, ages 50 to 64 years, not up-to-date with screening were randomized to receive either a mailed FIT outreach (n ¼ 6,565), outreach plus $5 (n ¼ 1,000), or $10 (n ¼ 1,000) incentive for completion. Patients who completed the test were reinvited using the same incentive the following year, for 3 years. In year 4, patients who returned the kit in all preceding 3 years were reinvited without incentives. Primary outcome was FIT completion among patients offered any incentive versus outreach alone each year. Secondary outcomes were FIT completion for groups

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.

No abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Noninvasive tests used in colorectal cancer screening, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), are more acceptable but detect neoplasias with lower levels of sensitivity than colonoscopy. We investigated whether lowering the cut-off concentration of hemoglobin for designation as an abnormal FIT result increased the detection of advanced neoplasia in a mailed outreach program. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, age 50 to 64 years, who were not current with screening and enrolled in a safety-net system in Texas. We reduced the cut-off value for an abnormal FIT result from 20 or more to 10 or more μ g hemoglobin/g feces a priori. All patients with abnormal FIT results were offered no-cost diagnostic colonoscopy. We compared proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results and neoplasia yield for standard vs lower cut-off values, as well as absolute hemoglobin concentration distribution among 5838 persons who completed the FIT. Our primary aim was to determine the effects of implementing a lower hemoglobin concentration cut-off value on colonoscopy demand and yield, specifically colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced neoplasia detection, compared with the standard, higher, hemoglobin concentration cut-off value. RESULTS: The proportions of patients with abnormal FIT results were 12.3% at the 10 or more μ g hemoglobin/g feces and 6.6% at the standard 20 or more μ g hemoglobin/g feces cut-off value ( P = .0013). Detection rates for the lower vs the standard threshold were 10.2% vs 12.7% for advanced neoplasia ( P = .12) and 0.9% vs 1.2% for CRC ( P = .718). The positive predictive values were 18.9% for the lower threshold vs 24.4% for the standard threshold for advanced neoplasia ( P = .053), and 1.7% vs 2.4% for CRC ( P = .659). The number needed to screen to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia was 45 at the lower threshold compared with 58 at the standard threshold; the number needed to scope to detect 1 case with advanced neoplasia increased from 4 to 5. Most patients with CRC (72.7%) or advanced adenoma (67.3%) had hemoglobin concentrations of 20 or more μ g/g feces. In the group with 10 to 19 μ g hemoglobin/g feces, there were 3 patients with CRC (3 of 11; 27.3%) and 36 with advanced adenoma (36 of 110; 32.7%) who would not have been detected at the standard positive threshold (advanced neoplasia P comparison < .001). The proportion of patients found to have no neoplasia after an abnormal FIT result (false positives) was not significantly higher with the lower cut-off value (44.4%) than the standard cut-off value (39.1%) ( P = .1103). CONCLUSION...

Introduction:Atrial fibrillation (AFIB) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a common tachydysrhythmia encountered by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Current guidelines suggest rate control in stable, symptomatic patients.Problem:Little is known about the safety or efficacy of rate-controlling medications given by prehospital providers. This study assessed a protocol for prehospital administration of diltiazem in the setting of AFIB with RVR for provider protocol compliance, patient clinical improvement, and associated adverse events.Methods:This was a retrospective, cohort study of patients who were administered diltiazem by providers in the Orange County EMS System (Florida USA) over a two-year period. The protocol directed a 0.25mg/kg dose of diltiazem (maximum of 20mg) for stable, symptomatic patients in AFIB with RVR at a rate of &gt;150 beats per minute (bpm) with a narrow complex. Data collected included patient characteristics, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm before and after diltiazem, and need for rescue or additional medications. Adverse events were defined as systolic blood pressure &lt;90mmHg or administration of intravenous fluid after diltiazem administration. Clinical improvement was defined as a heart rate decreased by 20% or less than 100bmp. Original prehospital ECG rhythm interpretations were compared to physician interpretations performed retrospectively.Results:Over the study period, 197 patients received diltiazem, with 131 adhering to the protocol. The initial rhythm was AFIB with RVR in 93% of the patients (five percent atrial flutter, two percent supraventricular tachycardia, and one percent sinus tachycardia). The agreement between prehospital and physician rhythm interpretation was 92%, with a Kappa value of 0.454 (P &lt;.001). Overall, there were 22 (11%) adverse events, and 112 (57%) patients showed clinical improvement. When diltiazem was given outside of the existing protocol, the patients had higher rates of adverse events (18% versus eight percent; P = .033). Patients who received diltiazem in adherence with protocols were more likely to show clinical improvement (63% versus 46%; P = .031).Conclusion:This study suggests that prehospital diltiazem administration for AFIB with RVR is safe and effective when strict protocols are followed.Rodriguez A, Hunter CL, Premuroso C, Silvestri S, Stone A, Miller S, Zuver C, Papa L. Safety and efficacy of prehospital diltiazem for atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(3):297–302.