Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Mailed Outreach Outperforms In-Clinic Outreach With Phone Calls Being the Most Effective Reminder Strategy.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Kanika Malani, Gabriel Dayanim, Jennifer Ouellette, Yetunde Shittu, Theresetta Myers, Yousef Elfanagely, Kirsten Loscalzo, Kittichai Promrat
{"title":"Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Mailed Outreach Outperforms In-Clinic Outreach With Phone Calls Being the Most Effective Reminder Strategy.","authors":"Kanika Malani, Gabriel Dayanim, Jennifer Ouellette, Yetunde Shittu, Theresetta Myers, Yousef Elfanagely, Kirsten Loscalzo, Kittichai Promrat","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Goals: </strong>This study aimed to (1) compare colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among patients receiving mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) versus in-clinic FIT and (2) assess the impact of various reminder interventions versus no extra reminder on mailed FIT completion.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>FIT is a first-line method for CRC screening. However, no research has compared screening completion in patients receiving FIT through mail (mailed FIT) versus patients receiving FIT from a provider in a clinic setting (in-clinic FIT), both of which have significantly different workflows. Furthermore, limited research has compared whether varying reminder strategies improve mailed FIT completion.</p><p><strong>Study: </strong>This quality improvement prospective cohort study conducted at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center included patients due for average-risk CRC screening. Sixteen hundred patients were mailed FIT, and if FIT was not returned within 1 month they were randomized to the following reminders: no extra reminder, personal phone call, personal voicemail, mailed postcard. Simultaneously, 1769 patients received in-clinic FIT. Three-month return and result rates were compared between mailed versus in-clinic FIT, as well as across the different mailed FIT reminder interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mailed FIT return (36%) and result (34%) rates were significantly higher than in-clinic FIT return (28%) and result (24%) rates (both P<0.0001). Phone calls were the most effective mailed FIT reminder (29% return rate), significantly outperforming the no extra reminder group (21% return rate, P=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mailed FIT demonstrated higher efficacy and should be implemented in conjunction with in-clinic FIT. Phone call reminders should be incorporated into the mailed FIT workflow.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002183","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Goals: This study aimed to (1) compare colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among patients receiving mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) versus in-clinic FIT and (2) assess the impact of various reminder interventions versus no extra reminder on mailed FIT completion.

Background: FIT is a first-line method for CRC screening. However, no research has compared screening completion in patients receiving FIT through mail (mailed FIT) versus patients receiving FIT from a provider in a clinic setting (in-clinic FIT), both of which have significantly different workflows. Furthermore, limited research has compared whether varying reminder strategies improve mailed FIT completion.

Study: This quality improvement prospective cohort study conducted at the Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center included patients due for average-risk CRC screening. Sixteen hundred patients were mailed FIT, and if FIT was not returned within 1 month they were randomized to the following reminders: no extra reminder, personal phone call, personal voicemail, mailed postcard. Simultaneously, 1769 patients received in-clinic FIT. Three-month return and result rates were compared between mailed versus in-clinic FIT, as well as across the different mailed FIT reminder interventions.

Results: Mailed FIT return (36%) and result (34%) rates were significantly higher than in-clinic FIT return (28%) and result (24%) rates (both P<0.0001). Phone calls were the most effective mailed FIT reminder (29% return rate), significantly outperforming the no extra reminder group (21% return rate, P=0.02).

Conclusions: Mailed FIT demonstrated higher efficacy and should be implemented in conjunction with in-clinic FIT. Phone call reminders should be incorporated into the mailed FIT workflow.

结肠直肠癌筛查的粪便免疫化学测试:邮寄外展优于门诊外展,电话是最有效的提醒策略。
目的:本研究旨在(1)比较接受邮寄粪便免疫化学测试(FIT)与临床FIT患者的结直肠癌(CRC)筛查率;(2)评估各种提醒干预措施与不进行额外提醒对邮寄FIT完成的影响。背景:FIT是CRC筛查的一线方法。然而,没有研究比较通过邮件接受FIT的患者(邮寄FIT)和在诊所接受FIT的患者(诊所内FIT)的筛查完成情况,两者都有明显不同的工作流程。此外,有限的研究比较了不同的提醒策略是否能提高邮寄FIT的完成度。研究:这项在普罗维登斯退伍军人事务医学中心进行的质量改善前瞻性队列研究纳入了应进行平均风险CRC筛查的患者。1600名患者邮寄了FIT,如果FIT在1个月内没有返回,他们被随机分配到以下提醒组:没有额外的提醒,私人电话,个人语音信箱,邮寄明信片。同时,1769例患者接受了临床FIT。三个月的回报和结果率比较邮寄与门诊FIT,以及不同邮寄FIT提醒干预。结果:邮寄FIT回收率(36%)和结果率(34%)显著高于门诊FIT回收率(28%)和结果率(24%)。结论:邮寄FIT具有更高的疗效,应与门诊FIT联合实施。电话提醒应纳入邮寄FIT工作流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信