低成本的干预措施提高了急诊病人宫颈癌筛查的接受度:一项随机临床试验的结果

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Academic Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1111/acem.15101
David Adler, Nancy Wood, Kevin Fiscella, Karen Mustian, Ellen Tourtelot, Joely Merriman, Sydney Chamberlin, Beau Abar
{"title":"低成本的干预措施提高了急诊病人宫颈癌筛查的接受度:一项随机临床试验的结果","authors":"David Adler, Nancy Wood, Kevin Fiscella, Karen Mustian, Ellen Tourtelot, Joely Merriman, Sydney Chamberlin, Beau Abar","doi":"10.1111/acem.15101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"776-784"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Low-cost interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"David Adler, Nancy Wood, Kevin Fiscella, Karen Mustian, Ellen Tourtelot, Joely Merriman, Sydney Chamberlin, Beau Abar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acem.15101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7105,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"776-784\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12276922/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15101\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:宫颈癌(CC)是可以预防的。CC筛查降低了CC死亡率。急诊科(ED)患者不遵守CC筛查建议的风险高得不成比例。因此,ED是促进CC筛查的干预措施的目标丰富的环境。方法:我们进行了一项随机临床试验,以测试和比较(1)基础转诊进行CC筛查和(2)基础转诊加基于行为改变理论的短信干预,以促进ED患者接受CC筛查的效果。年龄在21-65岁,确定需要CC筛查的参与者被随机分配到研究组,并随访150天,以评估间隔CC筛查的摄取(主要结局),并分析与方法相关的干预效果调节因子。参与者从同一医疗保健系统内的大型城市急诊科和小型农村急诊科招募。将干预组与历史对照组进行比较。结果:共调查了4035例患者,其中1089例确定需要进行CC筛查,随后进行随机分组。在150天的随访中,20%的基本转诊组和23%的基本转诊加短信组接受了筛查。历史对照组的筛查摄取在150天内发现为10%。两组间的总体差异无统计学意义(p = 0.219)。然而,适度分析发现,≥40岁的女性在高强度干预后的筛查率高于低强度干预(p = 0.032)。与对照组相比,两种干预措施(单独和联合)在筛查摄取方面的差异具有显著性(p≤0.001)。结论:本研究表明,与历史对照相比,两种评估的低强度ed干预措施显著增加了随后的CC筛查。在≥40岁的女性中,与低强度干预相比,高强度干预显著增加了筛查吸收率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Low-cost interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial.

Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.

Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.

Results: A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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