BACKGROUND: Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. DESIGN: Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors. SUBJECTS: All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance. INTERVENTION: The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of cancer screening at 1 year. KEY RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n=185) or usual care (n=181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p =0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p=0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.KEY WORDS: breast neoplasms; colorectal neoplasms; cancer screening; healthcare disparities.

BACKGROUND:Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice. DESIGN: Pragmatic randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening. INTERVENTIONS: We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call). MAIN MEASURES: Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization. KEY RESULTS: Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates. CONCLUSIONS:The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.KEY WORDS: cancer screening; colorectal cancer; breast cancer; outreach; inreach.

No abstract

Objective Concurrent peer review visits are structured office visits conducted by clinician peers of the primary care clinician that are specifically designed to reduce competing demands, clinical inertia, and bias. We assessed whether a single concurrent peer review visit reduced clinical inertia and improved control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes control among underserved patients. Methods We conducted a randomized encouragement trial to evaluate concurrent peer review visits with a community health center. Seven hundred twenty-seven patients with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes who were not at goal for systolic blood pressure (SBP), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and/or glycated hemoglobin (A1c) were randomly assigned to an invitation to participate in a concurrent peer review visit or to usual care. We compared change in these measures using mixed models and rates of therapeutic intensification during concurrent peer review visits with control visits. Results One hundred seventy-one patients completed a concurrent peer review visit. SBP improved significantly (p < .01) more among those completing concurrent peer review visits than among those who failed to respond to a concurrent peer review invitation or those randomized to usual care. There were no differences seen for changes in LDL-C or A1c. Concurrent peer review visits were associated with statistically significant greater clinician intensification of blood pressure (p < .001), lipid (p < .001), and diabetes (p < .005) treatment than either for control visits for patients in either the nonresponse group or usual care group. Conclusions Concurrent peer review visits represent a promising strategy for improving blood pressure control and improving therapeutic intensification in community health centers.