Search

Background: Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test (FIT) reduces the burden of colorectal cancer. However, effectiveness relies on annual adherence, which presents challenges for clinic staff and patients.Objective: Describe FIT return rates and identify factors associated with FIT adherence over 2 years in a mailed FIT outreach program in federally qualified health centers.Design: Observational study nested in the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) trial. Five thousand one hundred ninety-five patients had an initial FIT order and were followed for ≥ 2 years (3574 also had a FIT order in the second year).Main Measures: FIT return percent in each year and patient- and neighborhood-level characteristics associated with FIT adherence.Key Results: Overall, the proportion of FIT orders that were completed was 46% in the patients' first year and 41% in the patients' second year. Of the 5195 patients with a FIT order in year 1, 3574 (69%) also had a FIT order in year 2 (71% of year 1 adherers and 67% of year 1 non-adherers, p = 0.009). Among those with a FIT order in the second year, the FIT return rate was about twice as high among those who were adherent in the first year (952/1674, or 57%) as among those who were not (531/1900, or 28%, p < 0.0001). Patient-level characteristics associated with higher odds of FIT return were a history of FIT screening at baseline, age over 65 (vs 50-65), no current tobacco use, recent receipt of a mammogram or flu vaccine, Asian ancestry (compared to non-Hispanic white), and non-English preference. The only neighborhood factor associated with lower FIT return rate was patient's larger residential city size.Conclusion: Our findings can inform the customization of programs to promote FIT return among patients who receive care at federally qualified health centers.Trial Registration: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chiropractic care is a popular alternative for back and neck pain, with efficacy comparable to usual care in randomized trials. However, the effectiveness of chiropractic care as delivered through conventional care settings remains largely unexplored.Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of usual care with or without chiropractic care for patients with chronic recurrent musculoskeletal back and neck pain.Study Design: Prospective cohort study using propensity score-matched controls.Participants: Using retrospective electronic health record data, we developed a propensity score model predicting likelihood of chiropractic referral. Eligible patients with back or neck pain were then contacted upon referral for chiropractic care and enrolled in a prospective study. For each referred patient, two propensity score-matched non-referred patients were contacted and enrolled. We followed the participants prospectively for 6 months.Main Measures: Main outcomes included pain severity, interference, and symptom bothersomeness. Secondary outcomes included expenditures for pain-related health care.Key Results: Both groups' (N = 70 referred, 139 non-referred) pain scores improved significantly over the first 3 months, with less change between months 3 and 6. No significant between-group difference was observed. (severity - 0.10 (95% CI - 0.30, 0.10), interference - 0.07 (- 0.31, 0.16), bothersomeness - 0.1 (- 0.39, 0.19)). After controlling for variances in baseline costs, total costs during the 6-month post-enrollment follow-up were significantly higher on average in the non-referred versus referred group ($1996 [SD = 3874] vs $1086 [SD = 1212], p = .034). Adjusting for differences in age, gender, and Charlson comorbidity index attenuated this finding, which was no longer statistically significant (p = .072).Conclusions: We found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in either patient-reported or economic outcomes. As clinical outcomes were similar, and the provision of chiropractic care did not increase costs, making chiropractic services available provided an additional viable option for patients who prefer this type of care, at no additional expense. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer deaths. Federally qualified health centers serve a unique patient population that often is not screened. Knowing who in this environment is getting screened via fecal testing and via colonoscopy can assist in tailoring intervention to raise rates of colorectal cancer screening. We examined patient-level and neighborhood-level characteristics associated with being up to date with colorectal cancer screening guidelines. We also examined associations between these factors and being screened with a fecal test. We observed an increase in colorectal cancer screening rates from 2010 to 2015. Adjusted analyses revealed that the following factors were significantly associated with colorectal cancer screening: aged 65 or older, having any type of insurance, previous outpatient visits, and current or other preventive screenings. Among adults aged 50-75 who were up to date with colorectal cancer screening, factors associated with use of fecal testing, as opposed to colonoscopy, were: being younger, speaking a non-English language, being uninsured, having prior office visits, and having had a flu shot in past year. Our findings may inform clinic-based effort to raise rates of colorectal cancer screening, especially in the community clinic setting. Trial Registration: , NCT01742065. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends multi-component interventions, including patient reminders, to improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening.Objective: We sought to compare the effectiveness of different forms of reminders for a direct-mail fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program.Design: Patient-randomized controlled trial.Participants: 2772 adults aged 50-75, not up to date with colorectal cancer screening recommendations, with a clinic visit in the previous year at any of four participating health center clinics.Intervention: Participants were mailed an introductory letter and FIT. Those who did not complete their FIT within 3 weeks were randomized to receive (1) a reminder letter, (2) two automated phone calls, (3) two text messages, (4) a live phone call, (5) a reminder letter and a live phone call, (6) two automated phone calls and a live phone call, or (7) two text messages and a live phone call. Patients with a patient portal account were sent two email reminders, but were not randomized.Main Measures: FIT return rates for each group, 6 months following randomization.Key Results: A total of 255 (10%) participants returned their FIT within 3 weeks of the mailing. Among randomized participants (n = 2010), an additional 25.5% returned their FITs after reminders were delivered (estimated overall return rate = 32.7%). In intention-to-treat analysis, compared to the group allocated to receive a reminder letter, return rates were higher for the group assigned to receive the live phone call (OR = 1.51 [1.03-2.21]) and lower for the group assigned to receive text messages (OR = 0.66 [0.43-0.99]). Reminder effectiveness differed by language preference.Conclusions: Our data suggest that FIT reminders that included a live call were more effective than reminders that relied solely on written communication (a text message or letter).Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov/ctc2/show/NCT01742065 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]