4.7 Article

Impact of a physician-oriented intervention on follow-up in colorectal cancer screening

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 375-381

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.11.010

Keywords

colorectal neoplasm; occult blood; mass screening; follow-up studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Complete diagnostic evaluation or CDE (i.e., colonoscopy or combined flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema X-ray) is often not performed for persons with an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT+) result. Method. This study evaluated the impact of a reminder-feedback and educational outreach intervention on primary care practice CDE recommendation and performance rates. Four hundred seventy primary care physicians (PCPs) in 318 practices participated in the study. Patients were mailed an FOBT kit annually as part of a screening program. Practices were randomly assigned to a Control Group (N= 198) or an Intervention Group (N = 120). During an 18-month pre-randomization period and a 9-month post-randomization period, 2,992 screening FOBT+ patients were identified. Intervention practices received the screening program and the intervention. Control practices received only the screening program. Study outcomes were baseline-adjusted CDE recommendation and performance rates. Results. At baseline, about two-thirds of FOBT+ patients received a CDE recommendation, and about half had a CDE performed. At endpoint, CDE recommendation and performance rates were both significantly higher for the Intervention as compared to the Control practices (OR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.37, 3.78, and OR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.06, 2.50, respectively). Conclusions. The reminder-feedback plus educational outreach intervention significantly increased CDE recommendation and performance. (C) 2003 The Institute For Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available