Kanika Malani, Gabriel Dayanim, Jennifer Ouellette, Yetunde Shittu, Theresetta Myers, Yousef Elfanagely, Kirsten Loscalzo, Kittichai Promrat
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Fecal Immunochemical Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Mailed Outreach Outperforms In-Clinic Outreach With Phone Calls Being the Most Effective Reminder Strategy.
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.
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.