4.5 Article

Efficacy of a Telehealth Intervention on Colonoscopy Uptake When Cost Is a Barrier: The Family CARE Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 24, Issue 9, Pages 1311-1318

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0150

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCI [1R01CA125194-0305]
  2. Huntsman Cancer Foundation
  3. Shared Resources at Huntsman Cancer Institute [Biostatistics and Research Design, Genetic Counseling, Research Informatics] [P30 CA042014]
  4. Shared Resources at Huntsman Cancer Institute [Tissue Resource and Applications Core (TRAC)] [P30 CA042014]
  5. Shared Resources at Huntsman Cancer Institute [Utah Population Database (UPDB)] [P30 CA042014]
  6. Utah Cancer Registry - NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program [HHSN261201000026C]
  7. Utah State Department of Health
  8. University of Utah
  9. California Department of Public Health [103885]
  10. National Cancer Institute's SEER Program [N01PC-2010-00034C, N01-PC-35139, N01-PC-54404]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Program of Cancer Registries [U58CCU000807-05]
  12. Colorado Central Cancer Registry program in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment - National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  13. Cancer Data Registry of Idaho
  14. National Program of Cancer Registries of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  15. New Mexico Tumor Registry - NCI [HHSN261201300010I]
  16. Rocky Mountain Cancer Genetics Network [HHSN261200744000C]
  17. Huntsman Cancer Registry
  18. Intermountain Healthcare Oncology Clinical Program and Intermountain Clinical Genetics Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE) compared with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers. Methods: Family members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N = 232) or an educational brochure (N = 249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained nonadherent. Rates of medically verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared on the basis of group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers. Results: In intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically verified colonoscopy [OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.85-7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.52). Conclusions: TeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers. Impact: Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent. (C) 2015 AACR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available