Search

Additional file 1: Table A1. Cost of Conventional Testing Regime: Private General Practice Clinic Setting – (Funded by Federal Government – Medicare). Table A2. Cost of Conventional Testing Regime: Public Sexual Health Clinic Setting (Funded by State Government). Table A3. Cost of Parallel Testing Regime: Community Peer Organisation Bulk Billing GP Clinic Setting (Funded by Federal Government - Medicare and State Government). Table A4. Cost of Parallel Testing Regime: Community Peer Testing Service using Volunteer Peer Nurse Setting (Funded by Federal Government - Medicare and State Government). Table A5. Cost of Point of Care Testing Regime: Community Peer Testing Service Setting (Funded by State Government). Table A6a. Cost of Point of Care Testing Regime: Home HIVST Setting (Includes Private Costs) (Funded by Consumer). Table A6b. Cost of Point of Care Testing Regime: Home HIVST Setting (Excludes Private Costs).

BackgroundA risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective.AimTo determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening.Design and settingRandomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018.MethodParticipants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50–74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months.ResultsA total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86,P= 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53,PConclusionA risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.