Effect of Patient Portal Messaging Before Mailing Fecal Immunochemical Test Kit on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates

Goshgarian, Gregory; Sorourdi, Camille; May, Folasade P.; Vangala, Sitaram; Meshkat, Sarah; Roh, Lily; Han, Maria; Croymans, Daniel M.

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46863

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, it should be kept in mind that subjects with certain comorbidities, such as severe lung/heart disease, are advised not to participate because the possible harms of the screening might outweigh its benefits. Earlier successful measures to improve screening participation rates include prenotification of the FIT screening invitation (37.6% vs 32.1% participation rate by sending vs not sending a prenotification, respectively) 30 and reminder letters to long‐term sigmoidoscopy nonparticipants (45.7% vs 41.6% participation by sending vs not sending reminders, respectively) 31 . In the present study, all nonparticipants received a reminder after 6 weeks of the initial invitation, and we did not test the effect of reminders.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing

Botteri

Hoff

Randel

et al. 2022

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing

Botteri

Hoff

Randel

et al. 2022

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of these notifications ( n = 13; 68%) significantly improved cancer screening uptake. Absolute increases in uptake were between 0.7% and 16% 11–13,15,18,29,40,50,54,55 . The remaining notifications had no significant effect on screening 36,42,43,45,54 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The key characteristics of the 32 included articles are summarised in Table 1 9,11–13,15,18,24,29,30,33–55 . Of these, the majority originated in the United States of America (41%), with others from the United Kingdom (25%), Australia (13%), Denmark (3%), Italy (3%), Latvia (3%), the Netherlands (3%), New Zealand (3%), Spain (3%), and Sweden (3%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Absolute increases in uptake were between 0.7% and 16%. [11][12][13]15,18,29,40,50,54,55 The remaining notifications had no significant effect on screening. 36,42,43,45,54 Overall, effective and ineffective notifications could not be differentiated by their characteristics or content, with some exceptions.…”

Section: Comparing Features Of Effective and Ineffective Advance Noti...mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Compared to no advance notification, the Australian NBCSP's advance notification letter is estimated to account for an additional 54 per 100,000 bowel cancer deaths avoided and incurs less than $4000 in costs per life year gained, well below the Australian standard for intervention cost effectiveness. 9,10 Although advance notification has been repeatedly shown to increase participation in screening, especially for bowel cancer, [11][12][13][14][15] these increases are small to moderate, between 4% and 9%, 16,17 suggesting room for further enhancement. One study has also demonstrated its effectiveness in increasing adherence to prostate screening, although the size of this increase is unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The implementation and mechanisms of advance notification for cancer screening: A scoping review

Collins,

Myers,

Goodwin

et al. 2024

Psycho-Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo describe and synthesise information on the content and delivery of advance notifications (information about cancer screening delivered prior to invitation) used to increase cancer screening participation and to understand the mechanisms that may underlie their effectiveness.MethodsSearches related to advance notification and cancer screening were conducted in six electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) and results were screened for eligibility. Study characteristics, features of the advance notifications (cancer type, format, delivery time, and content), and the effect of the notifications on cancer screening participation were extracted. Features were summarised and compared across effective versus ineffective notifications.ResultsThirty‐two articles were included in this review, reporting on 33 unique advance notifications. Of these, 79% were sent via postal mail, 79% were distributed prior to bowel cancer screening, and most were sent 2 weeks before the screening offer. Twenty‐two full versions of the advance notifications were obtained for content analysis. Notifications included information about cancer risk, the benefits of screening, barriers to participation, social endorsement of cancer screening, and what to expect throughout the screening process. Of the 19 notifications whose effect was tested statistically, 68% were found to increase screening (by 0.7%–16%). Effectiveness did not differ according to the format, delivery time, or content within the notification, although some differences in cancer type were observed.ConclusionFuture research should explore the effectiveness of advance notification via alternative formats and for other screening contexts and disentangle the intervention‐ and person‐level factors driving its effect on screening participation.

show abstract

Barriers and proposed solutions to at‐home colorectal cancer screening tests in medically underserved health centers across three US regions to inform a randomized trial

Brodney,

Bhat,

Tuan

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAt‐home colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an effective way to reduce CRC mortality, but screening rates in medically underserved groups are low. To plan the implementation of a pragmatic randomized trial comparing two population‐based outreach approaches, we conducted qualitative research on current processes and barriers to at‐home CRC screening in 10 community health centers (CHCs) that serve medically underserved groups, four each in Massachusetts and California, and two tribal facilities in South Dakota.MethodsWe conducted 53 semi‐structured interviews with clinical and administrative staff at the participating CHCs. Participants were asked about CRC screening processes, categorized into eight domains: patient identification, outreach, risk assessment, fecal immunochemical test (FIT) workflows, FIT‐DNA (i.e., Cologuard) workflows, referral for a follow‐up colonoscopy, patient navigation, and educational materials. Transcripts were analyzed using a Rapid Qualitative Analysis approach. A matrix was used to organize and summarize the data into four sub‐themes: current process, barriers, facilitators, and solutions to adapt materials for the intervention.ResultsEach site's process for stool‐based CRC screening varied slightly. Interviewees identified the importance of offering educational materials in English and Spanish, using text messages to remind patients to return kits, adapting materials to address health literacy needs so patients can access instructions in writing, pictures, or video, creating mailed workflows integrated with a tracking system, and offering patient navigation to colonoscopy for patients with an abnormal result.ConclusionProposed solutions across the three regions will inform a multilevel intervention in a pragmatic trial to increase CRC screening uptake in CHCs.

show abstract

Effect of Patient Portal Messaging Before Mailing Fecal Immunochemical Test Kit on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing

Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing

The implementation and mechanisms of advance notification for cancer screening: A scoping review

Barriers and proposed solutions to at‐home colorectal cancer screening tests in medically underserved health centers across three US regions to inform a randomized trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About