Key PointsQuestionDo mailed human papillomavirus self-sampling kits increase detection and treatment of cervical precancers and screening uptake vs usual care (reminders for in-clinic screening)?FindingsThis randomized clinical trial included 19 851 women; 26% were screened after receiving a human papillomavirus kit vs 17% with usual care, a significant difference. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of cases of precancers detected or treated.MeaningThis study indicates that mailing human papillomavirus kits to underscreened women can increase cervical cancer screening, and implementation efforts should strategize how to further increase kit uptake and follow-up of positive results to maximize detection and treatment of precancers in women at high risk.

Women who delay or do not attend Papanicolaou (Pap) screening are at increased risk for cervical cancer. Trials in countries with organized screening programs have demonstrated that mailing high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to under-screened women increases participation, but U.S. data are lacking. HOME is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system to compare two programmatic approaches for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in under-screened women (≥3.4years since last Pap) aged 30-64years: 1) usual care (annual patient reminders and ad hoc outreach by clinics) and 2) usual care plus mailed hrHPV self-screening kits. Over 2.5years, eligible women were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized 1:1 to the intervention or control arm. Women in the intervention arm were mailed kits with pre-paid envelopes to return samples to the central clinical laboratory for hrHPV testing. Results were documented in the EMR to notify women's primary care providers of appropriate follow-up. Primary outcomes are detection and treatment of cervical neoplasia. Secondary outcomes are cervical cancer screening uptake, abnormal screening results, and women's experiences and attitudes towards hrHPV self-sampling and follow-up of hrHPV-positive results (measured through surveys and interviews). The trial was designed to evaluate whether a programmatic strategy incorporating hrHPV self-sampling is effective in promoting adherence to the complete screening process (including follow-up of abnormal screening results and treatment). The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial.

Objective: We explored patient perspectives after a positive human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling result to describe experiences and information needs for this home-based screening modality. Materials and Methods: We recruited women who tested high-risk (hr) HPV positive during a pragmatic trial evaluating mailed hrHPV self-sampling kits as an outreach strategy for women overdue for Pap screening in a U.S. integrated health care system. Telephone interviews were conducted from 2014 to 2017. Five independent coders analyzed transcripts using iterative content analysis. Results: Forty-six women (61% of invited; median age 55.5 years) completed a semistructured interview. Six themes emerged: (1) convenience of home-based screening, (2) intense feelings and emotions after receiving positive kit results, (3) importance of seeing provider and discussing kit results, (4) information seeking from various sources, (5) confusion about purpose and meaning of HPV versus Pap tests, and (6) concern that HPV self-sampling is inaccurate when the subsequent Pap test is normal. Conclusions: Although women liked the kit's convenience, discussion about discordant home HPV and inclinic Pap results led them to question the accuracy of HPV self-sampling. Patient-provider communication around home HPV kits is more complex than for reflex or cotesting because clinician-collected Pap results are unknown at the time of the positive kit result. Patients need education about differences between HPV and Pap tests and how they are used for screening and follow-up. To reassure patients and keep them interested in selfsampling, education should be provided at multiple time points during the screening process.

IMPORTANCEColorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups.OBJECTIVETo examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled.INTERVENTIONSInterventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures.RESULTSA total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%–15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, −0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%–64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, −0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEFinancial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov identifier:

Background Digital interventions, such as websites and smartphone apps, can be effective in treating drug use disorders (DUDs). However, their implementation in primary care is hindered, in part, by a lack of knowledge on how patients might like these treatments delivered to them. Objective This study aims to increase the understanding of how patients with DUDs prefer to receive app-based treatments to inform the implementation of these treatments in primary care. Methods The methods of user-centered design were combined with qualitative research methods to inform the design of workflows for offering app-based treatments in primary care. Adult patients (n=14) with past-year cannabis, stimulant, or opioid use disorder from 5 primary care clinics of Kaiser Permanente Washington in the Seattle area participated in this study. Semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative template analysis. The coding scheme included deductive codes based on interview topics, which primarily focused on workflow design. Inductive codes emerged from the data. Results Participants wanted to learn about apps during visits where drug use was discussed and felt that app-related conversations should be incorporated into the existing care whenever possible, as opposed to creating new health care visits to facilitate the use of the app. Nearly all participants preferred receiving clinician support for using apps over using them without support. They desired a trusting, supportive relationship with a clinician who could guide them as they used the app. Participants wanted follow-up support via phone calls or secure messaging because these modes of communication were perceived as a convenient and low burden (eg, no copays or appointment travel). Conclusions A user-centered implementation of treatment apps for DUDs in primary care will require health systems to design workflows that account for patients’ needs for structure, support in and outside of visits, and desire for convenience.