Terry C. Davis|Connie L. Arnold|Charles L. Bennett|Michael S. Wolf|Cristalyn Reynolds|Dachao Liu|Alfred Rademaker
Strategies to Improve Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Testing Cancer Screening
MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine|MUSC Hollings Cancer Center|Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport|Northwestern University|Medical University of South Carolina|General Department of Preventive Medicine
abstract background comparative effectiveness intervention team improved initial fecal occult blood testing fobt rates 3 53 among community clinic patients purpose study evaluate effectiveness costs associated literacyinformed intervention repeat fobt testing methods 2008 2011 threearm quasiexperiential comparative effectiveness evaluation conducted eight community clinics louisiana clinics randomly assigned receive enhanced care screening recommendation fobt kit annually brief educational intervention patients additionally received literacy appropriate pamphlet simplified fobt instructions nurse support nurse manager provided education followed phone support year 2 materials mailed study consisted 461 patients ages 50 85 years negative initial fobt results repeat fobt rates 38 enhanced care 33 education 59 nurse support p 0017 adjusting age race gender literacy patients receiving nurse support 146 times likely complete repeat fobt screening receiving education 95 confidence interval ci 114106 p 0002 145 times likely enhanced care significant 95 ci 093226 p 010 incremental cost per additional person screened 2450 nurse enhanced care conclusion mailed pamphlet fobt simplified instructions improve annual screening impact telephone outreach nurse manager effective improving rates repeat fobt yet may costly community clinics cancer epidemiol biomarkers prev 231 13443 2013 aacr