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 patient-level 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.

Conclusions

Future studies aimed at improving FIT screening and subsequent colonoscopy rates need to address the unique needs of patients for effective and sustainable screening programs.

Trial registration

NCT01946282.

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 μg 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 μg hemoglobin/g feces and 6.6% at the standard 20 or more μg 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 μg/g feces. In the group with 10 to 19 μg 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 Pcomparison < .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).

Conclusions

In a prospective study of 17,017 uninsured patients, we found that reducing the abnormal FIT result cut-off value (to ≥10 μg hemoglobin/g feces) might increase detection of advanced neoplasia, but doubled the proportion of patients requiring a diagnostic colonoscopy. If colonoscopy capacity permits, health systems that use quantitative FITs should consider lowering the abnormal cut-off value to optimize CRC detection and prevention. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01946282.).

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 = 6,565), outreach plus $5 (n = 1,000), or $10 (n = 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 offered $5 versus outreach alone, $10 versus outreach alone, and $5 versus $10.

Results

Year 1 FIT completion was 36.9% with incentives versus 36.2% outreach alone (P = 0.59) and was not statistically different for $10 (34.6%; P = 0.31) or $5 (39.2%; P = 0.070) versus outreach alone. Year 2 completion was 61.6% with incentives versus 60.8% outreach alone (P = 0.75) and not statistically different for $10 or $5 versus outreach alone. Year 3 completion was 79.4% with incentives versus 74.8% outreach alone (P = 0.080), and was higher for $10 (82.4%) versus outreach alone (P = 0.033), but not for $5 versus outreach alone. Completion was similar across conditions in year 4 (no incentives).

Conclusions

Offering small incentives did not increase FIT completion relative to standard outreach.

Impact

This was the first longitudinal study testing the impact of repeated financial incentives, and their withdrawal, on FIT completion.

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 = 6,565), outreach plus $5 (n = 1,000), or $10 (n = 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 offered $5 versus outreach alone, $10 versus outreach alone, and $5 versus $10.

Results

Year 1 FIT completion was 36.9% with incentives versus 36.2% outreach alone (P = 0.59) and was not statistically different for $10 (34.6%; P = 0.31) or $5 (39.2%; P = 0.070) versus outreach alone. Year 2 completion was 61.6% with incentives versus 60.8% outreach alone (P = 0.75) and not statistically different for $10 or $5 versus outreach alone. Year 3 completion was 79.4% with incentives versus 74.8% outreach alone (P = 0.080), and was higher for $10 (82.4%) versus outreach alone (P = 0.033), but not for $5 versus outreach alone. Completion was similar across conditions in year 4 (no incentives).

Conclusions

Offering small incentives did not increase FIT completion relative to standard outreach.

Impact

This was the first longitudinal study testing the impact of repeated financial incentives, and their withdrawal, on FIT completion.

Objectives

Offering financial incentives to promote or "nudge" participation in cancer screening programs, particularly among vulnerable populations who traditionally have lower rates of screening, has been suggested as a strategy to enhance screening uptake. However, effectiveness of such practices has not been established. Our aim was to determine whether offering small financial incentives would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening completion in a low-income, uninsured population.

Methods

We conducted a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial among primary care patients, aged 50-64 years, not up-to-date with CRC screening served by a large, safety net health system in Fort Worth, Texas. Patients were randomly assigned to mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach (n=6,565), outreach plus a $5 incentive (n=1,000), or outreach plus a $10 incentive (n=1,000). Outreach included reminder phone calls and navigation to promote diagnostic colonoscopy completion for patients with abnormal FIT. Primary outcome was FIT completion within 1 year, assessed using an intent-to-screen analysis.

Results

FIT completion was 36.9% with vs. 36.2% without any financial incentive (P=0.60) and was also not statistically different for the $10 incentive (34.6%, P=0.32 vs. no incentive) or $5 incentive (39.2%, P=0.07 vs. no incentive) groups. Results did not differ substantially when stratified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, or neighborhood poverty rate. Median time to FIT return also did not differ across groups.

Conclusions

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.

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p < 0.001), set goals for six risks (range of differences 3.8-16.6 %, p < 0.01), and improve five risks (range of differences 5.4-13.6 %, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt clinicians cared more for them and showed more interest in their concerns. Patient-centered health risk assessments improve screening and goal setting.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01825746.

Abstract Background There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response. Methods This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment – addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues – and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs. Discussion The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746

The rapid pace of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19) pandemic presents challenges to the real-time collection of population-scale data to inform near-term public health needs as well as future investigations. We established the COronavirus Pandemic Epidemiology (COPE) consortium to address this unprecedented crisis on behalf of the epidemiology research community. As a central component of this initiative, we have developed a COVID Symptom Study (previously known as the COVID Symptom Tracker) mobile application as a common data collection tool for epidemiologic cohort studies with active study participants. This mobile application collects information on risk factors, daily symptoms, and outcomes through a user-friendly interface that minimizes participant burden. Combined with our efforts within the general population, data collected from nearly 3 million participants in the United States and United Kingdom are being used to address critical needs in the emergency response, including identifying potential hot spots of disease and clinically actionable risk factors. The linkage of symptom data collected in the app with information and biospecimens already collected in epidemiology cohorts will position us to address key questions related to diet, lifestyle, environmental, and socioeconomic factors on susceptibility to COVID-19, clinical outcomes related to infection, and long-term physical, mental health, and financial sequalae. We call upon additional epidemiology cohorts to join this collective effort to strengthen our impact on the current health crisis and generate a new model for a collaborative and nimble research infrastructure that will lead to more rapid translation of our work for the betterment of public health.