Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence.

Little is known about the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) feedback on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In a recently completed randomized trial, primary care patients received GERA feedback based on a blood test for genetic polymorphisms and serum folate level (GERA Group) versus usual care (Control Group). Subsequently, participants were offered CRC screening. Among participants who received GERA feedback, being at elevated risk was negatively associated with prospective CRC screening adherence. Secondary analyses of data from this study were performed to identify independent predictors of adherence among participants who received GERA feedback. We obtained baseline survey, follow-up survey, and endpoint medical records data on sociodemographic background, knowledge, psychosocial characteristics, risk status, and adherence for 285 GERA Group participants. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of CRC screening adherence. Following a 6-month outcomes observation period, we also conducted two focus groups with GERA Group participants to assess their perceptions of GERA risk feedback and screening. Content analyses of focus group data were evaluated to gain insights into participant response to risk feedback. Overall, half of GERA Group participants adhered to screening within 6 months after randomization. Multivariable analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between race and GERA feedback status relative to screening adherence (p = 0.043). Among participants who received average risk feedback, adherence was comparable among whites (49.7 %) and nonwhites (54.1 %); however, among those at elevated risk, adherence was substantially higher among whites (66.7 %) compared to nonwhites (33.3 %). Focus group findings suggest that whites were more likely than nonwhites to view elevated risk feedback as a prompt to screen. In response to receiving elevated risk feedback, nonwhites were more likely than whites to report feeling anxiety about the likelihood of being diagnosed with CRC. Further research is needed to explore race-related CRC screening differences in response to GERA feedback.

Cost-effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODS: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.

Race and response to colon cancer screening interventions.

OBJECTIVE: We report race-related differences in response to behavioral interventions in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: From 2002 through 2005, a total of 1430 primary care patients (578 whites and 852 African Americans) from Jefferson Family Medicine Associates, a large primary care practice affiliated with Thomas Jefferson University, completed a baseline survey and were randomized to 1 of 4 groups, as follows: control (usual care), standard intervention (SI), tailored intervention (TI), or tailored intervention plus phone (TIP). The SI group received a targeted print intervention by mail. The TI group received the targeted intervention and tailored message pages that addressed perceptions related to screening. The TIP group received the targeted intervention, tailored message pages, and a telephone reminder. RESULTS: CRC screening rates for whites and African Americans were comparable in usual care (33% versus 32%, respectively). In response to intervention, however, whites exhibited significantly higher (p=0.005) screening rates than African Americans (53% versus 43%, respectively; adjusted OR=1.44; 95% CI=1.12-1.86). This effect is largely explained by differential response to mailed print interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Whites and African Americans may respond differently to mailed interventions intended to increase CRC screening. Research is needed on methods that can both increase screening and racial equity in screening.

Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening decision stage.

OBJECTIVE: This paper reports on factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision stage (SDS) in screening-eligible primary care patients. METHODS: Baseline telephone survey data (i.e., sociodemographic background, CRC screening perceptions, and SDS) were obtained for 1515 patients in a randomized behavioral intervention trial. Respondents reported SDS, a measure of proximity to actual screening, after listening to descriptions of screening stool blood testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy as had never heard of (NHO), were not considering or were undecided (NCU), or decided to do (DTD) each test. Polychotomous regression analyses were performed to differentiate participants by SDS. RESULTS: At baseline, SDS was distributed as follows: NHO (8%), NCU (41%), and DTD (51%). We found that individuals who had DTD compared to those who were NCU about screening were older (OR=0.64), had prior cancer screening (OR=1.43), believed screening is important (OR=3.44), and had high social support (OR=2.49). Persons who were NCU compared to NHO participants were female (OR=2.18), were white (OR=2.35), had prior cancer screening (OR=2.81), and believed screening is important (OR=2.44). CONCLUSIONS: Prior screening and belief in screening importance were found to be consistently associated with SDS across comparisons, while older age, gender, race, and social support were not.

Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation.

PURPOSE: Screening for fecal occult blood reduces colorectal cancer mortality by identifying patients with positive results for complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE). CDE rates are suboptimal, however. We sought to determine common reasons for nonperformance of a CDE as recorded by the primary care physician. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of reasons reported by physicians for nonperformance of CDE in a nested sample of patients with positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) results from a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of a physician intervention (CDE reminder-feedback and educational outreach) on recommendation and performance rates in primary care practices. Inspection of administrative data for 1,468 patients with positive results showed that 661 (45%) did not undergo CDE. We reviewed patient follow-up forms, which were completed by physicians for patients who did not have a CDE, to identify reasons for nonperformance. RESULTS: Nonperformance of CDE was due to physician decision for 217 patients (33%). In 123 patients (19%), reasons for nonperformance were compatible with the guidelines, and in 94 patients (14%), they were not. Reasons wholly or partially due to factors other than physician decision were noted in 212 patients (32%); physician action was considered to be appropriate in these patients. For the 232 patients (35%) without a clearly documented reason for CDE nonperformance, the appropriateness of the physicians' action could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making by primary care physicians had a major effect on nonperformance of CDE after a positive FOBT result. Colorectal cancer screening programs should include guidance for physicians about when a CDE should and should not be performed.

Tailored navigation in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective methods to increase screening use are needed. This study sought to determine the impact of tailored navigation on CRC screening in primary care. METHODS: The study included 154 primary care practice patients who were 50 or more years of age, were eligible for CRC screening, and had an office visit within 2 years before study initiation. Baseline telephone survey data were collected on participant sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and screening test [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colonoscopy] decision stage. By comparing decision stage data, we identified that test with the highest decision stage (ie, preferred screening test). Participants who preferred FOBT were sent an FOBT kit and a reminder. Those preferring colonoscopy were sent colonoscopy instructions. After this mailing, a study patient navigator made a telephone call to guide participants towards screening. Six-month end point survey and medical records data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of screening and of change in preferred screening test decision stage. RESULTS: At end point, 63 (41%) study participants had screened. From baseline to end point, overall screening preference increased for 75 (63%) participants. Age and perceived salience and coherence (ie, screening is important and sensible) were positive, significant predictors of screening use (P = 0.02 and P = 0.05, respectively); while only age predicted change in overall screening preference (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Study participant screening use and preference increased. Age and attitudes predicted outcomes. Randomized trials are needed to determine intervention impact at the population level.

Preparing African-American men in community primary care practices to decide whether or not to have prostate cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: This study was a randomized trial to test the impact of an informed decision-making intervention on prostate cancer screening use. METHODS: The study population included 242 African-American men from three primary care practices who were 40-69 years of age and had no history of prostate cancer. Participants completed a baseline survey questionnaire and were randomly assigned either to a Standard Intervention (SI) group (N=121) or an Enhanced Intervention (EI) group (N=121). An informational booklet was mailed to both groups. EI group men were also offered a screening decision education session. Two outcomes were considered: (1) complete screening (i.e., having a digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing), and (2) complete or partial screening (i.e., having a PSA test with or without DRE). An endpoint chart audit was performed six months after initial intervention contact. The data were analyzed via exact logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, screening use was low among study participants. EI group men had a screening frequency two times greater than that of SI group men, but the difference was not statistically significant: 8% vs. 4 % (OR = 1.94) fo rcomplete screening, and 19% vs. 10% (OR = 2.08) for complete or partial screening. Multivariable analyses showed that being in the EI group and primary care practice were significant predictors of complete or partial screening (OR = 3.9 and OR = 5.64, respectively). CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer screening use may be influenced by exposure to decision education and the influence of screening-related primary care practice factors.

Behaviors used by men to protect themselves against prostate cancer.

This paper reports on behaviors men use to protect themselves against prostate cancer. Data were collected via a telephone or mailed survey from 353 men enrolled in two studies of prostate cancer screening. Respondents reported behaviors they used to protect themselves against prostate cancer, and responses were coded as conventional care, self-care, or nothing. Men who reported using both conventional care and self-care were categorized as conventional care users. Polytomous logistic regression was conducted to evaluate the association between sociodemographic background, prior prostate screening, and cognitive, affective, and social support and influence factors with protective behavior type. The distribution of protective behaviors was as follows: conventional care, 63%; self-care only, 19%; and nothing, 18%. In multivariable analyses, higher education level was found to be positively associated with conventional care use. Perceived salience and coherence of prostate cancer screening was positively associated with conventional care use among men in one of the two studies. Low concern about screening was positively associated with self-care use, as was mailed survey completion. This study presents self-report data regarding prostate cancer protection behaviors. Most men in the study reported using some type of prostate cancer protective behavior. Decision-making about whether or not to take protective action and what type of behavior to use may be influenced by socioeconomic background, cognitive perceptions related to behavioral options, and concern about risk.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care. METHODS: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening. RESULTS: Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests. CONCLUSIONS: Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches. IMPACT: Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Decision counseling and participation in a pancreas cancer registry.

Cancer registries play a vital role in research, as they provide important data that can be used to assess disease etiology and risk. Specialty registries can help to address the need for information on defined cancer types. However, achieving high rates of participation in such registries is problematic.We studied the impact of decision support on patient participation in a hospital-based pancreas cancer registry, the Jefferson Pancreas Tumor Registry (JPTR). In this study, we assembled a nonrandomized cohort of 40 patients, of whom 20 were exposed to the intervention and 20 were exposed to routine recruiting methods. Patients in the control group were invited to join the JPTR; while those in the intervention group were also invited to join the JPTR, and received decision support related to participation. Registry participation was assessed at 90 days. At baseline, patient gender, race, and stage of pancreatic cancer did not vary significantly between study groups. Overall, participation in the intervention group was significantly higher (P = 0.01) than in the control group (55% and 10%, respectively). In the intervention group, altruism was the major factor motivating patient participation, while patient concerns related to treatment recovery, registration time and complexity, and the confidentiality of registry data discouraged participation.

Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs). METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes. RESULTS: At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival.

A randomized controlled trial of a tailored navigation and a standard intervention in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS). METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, CONTROL GROUP: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and CONTROL GROUP: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS. IMPACT: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

Variation in colorectal cancer screening steps in primary care: basis for practice improvement.

No published research has assessed the specific steps that primary care practices actually take to carry out screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). A written survey was distributed to clinicians and staff at 15 primary care practices to determine whether they perceived that personnel in their practices performed a series of 4 steps associated with screening colonoscopy and 7 steps associated with stool blood test screening. For each discrete step, the percentage of respondents from each practice who indicated that a given step is performed in that practice was calculated along with the mean of practice percentages. Survey results indicate wide variation in the degree to which these screening steps are performed across the 15 practices.  Variation was greater for steps that involved contacting nonresponders (reminders), scheduling, and rescheduling. Survey responses suggest substantial variation and much room for improvement in practice performance of evidence-based steps in the CRC screening process.

Measuring informed decision making about prostate cancer screening in primary care.

PURPOSE: To measure the extent of informed decision making (IDM) about prostate cancer screening in physician-patient encounters, describe the coding process, and assess the reliability of the IDM measure. METHODS: Audiorecoded encounters of 146 older adult men and their primary care physicians were obtained in a randomized controlled trial of mediated decision support related to prostate cancer screening. Each encounter was dual coded for the presence or absence of 9 elements that reflect several important dimensions of IDM, such as information sharing, patient empowerment, and engaging patients in preference clarification. An IDM-9 score (range = 0-9) was determined for each encounter by summing the number of elements that were coded as present. Estimates of coding reliability and internal consistency were calculated. RESULTS: Male patients tended to be white (59%), married (70%), and between the ages of 50 and 59 (70%). Physicians tended to be white (90%), male (74%), and have more than 10 years of practice experience (74%). IDM-9 scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 (mean [SD], 2.7 [2.1]). Reliability (0.90) and internal consistency (0.81) of the IDM-9 were both high. The IDM dimension observed most frequently was information sharing (74%), whereas the dimension least frequently observed was engagement in preference clarification (3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In physician-patient encounters, the level of IDM concerning prostate cancer screening was low. The use of a dual-coding approach with audiorecorded encounters produced a measure of IDM that was reliable and internally consistent.

Mediated decision support in prostate cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial of decision counseling.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized trial was conducted to assess the impact of a mediated decision support intervention on primary care patient prostate cancer screening knowledge, decisional conflict, informed decision making (IDM), and screening. METHODS: Before a routine office visit, 313 male patients eligible for prostate cancer screening completed a baseline telephone survey and received a mailed brochure on prostate cancer screening. At the visit, participants were randomized to either an enhanced intervention (EI) or a standard intervention (SI) group. Before meeting with their physician, EI Group men had a nurse-led "decision counseling" session, while SI Group men completed a practice satisfaction survey. An endpoint survey was administered. Survey data, encounter audio-recordings, and chart audit data were used to assess study outcomes. RESULTS: Knowledge increased in the EI Group (mean difference of +0.8 on a 10-point scale, p=0.001), but decisional conflict did not change (mean difference of -0.02 on a 4-point scale, p=0.620). The EI Group had higher IDM (rate ratio=1.30, p=0.029) and lower screening (odds ratio=0.67, p=0.102). CONCLUSION: Nurse-mediated decision counseling increased participant prostate cancer screening knowledge, and influenced informed decision making and screening. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Nurses trained in decision counseling can facilitate shared decision making about screening.

A randomized trial of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) for colorectal cancer risk in primary care: trial design and baseline findings.

PURPOSE: This paper describes an ongoing randomized controlled trial designed to assess the impact of genetic and environmental risk assessment (GERA) on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: The trial includes asymptomatic patients who are 50-79years and are not up-to-date with CRC screening guidelines. Patients who responded to a baseline telephone survey are randomized to a GERA or Control group. GERA group participants meet with a nurse, decide whether to have a GERA blood test (a combination of genetic polymorphism and folate), and, if tested, receive GERA feedback. Follow-up telephone surveys are conducted at 1 and 6months. A chart audit is performed at 6months. RESULTS: Of 2,223 eligible patients, 562 (25%) have enrolled. Patients who enrolled in the study were significantly younger than those who did not (p<0.001). Participants tended to be 50-59years (64%), female (58%), white (52%), married (51%), and have more than a high school education (67%). At baseline, most participants had some knowledge of CRC screening and GERA, viewed CRC screening favorably, and reported that they had decided to do screening. Almost half had worries and concerns about CRC. CONCLUSIONS: One in four eligible primary care patients enrolled in the study. Age was negatively associated with enrollment. Prospective analyses using data for all participants will provide more definitive information on GERA uptake and the impact of GERA feedback.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored behavioral interventions to increase CRC screening use by conducting an economic analysis associated with a randomized trial among patients in a large, racially and ethnically diverse, urban family practice in Philadelphia. METHODS: The incremental costs per unit increase were measured in individuals who were screened during the 24 months after intervention. Percent increase in screening was adjusted for baseline differences in the study groups. Each intervention arm received a targeted screening invitation letter, stool blood test (SBT) cards, informational booklet, and reminder letter. Tailored interventions incrementally added tailored messages and reminder telephone calls. RESULTS: Program costs of the targeted intervention were 42 dollars per participant. Additional costs of adding tailored print materials and of delivering a reminder telephone call were 150 dollars and 200 dollars per participant, respectively. The cost per additional individual screened was 319 dollars when comparing the no intervention group with the targeted intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The targeted intervention was more effective and less costly than the tailored intervention. Although tailoring plus reminder telephone call was the most effective strategy, it was very costly per additional individual screened. Mailed SBT cards significantly boosted CRC screening use. However, going beyond the targeted intervention to include tailoring or tailoring plus reminder calls in the manner used in this study did not appear to be an economically attractive strategy.

Genetic and environmental risk assessment for colorectal cancer risk in primary care practice settings: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The assessment of genetic variants and environmental exposures (i.e., genetic and environmental risk assessment) may permit individualized risk stratification for common diseases as part of routine care. A pilot study was conducted to assess the uptake of, and response to, testing for colorectal cancer risk among average risk patients in primary care practice settings. METHODS: Physicians in primary care practices identified patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening and referred them to the study. Research staff administered a baseline survey to consenting patients. At a scheduled office visit, participants underwent decision counseling with a trained nurse educator to facilitate informed decision making about being tested for methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase status and red blood cell folate level. Combined assessment can stratify colorectal cancer risk. Test results were disclosed within 2 weeks after the visit. Postvisit and 1-month endpoint surveys were administered. Univariable analyses of survey data were performed to assess changes from baseline in genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening-related knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Of the 57 patients who were referred to the study, 25 (44%) consented to participate, and all but one were tested. Participant knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment and colorectal cancer screening, perceived colorectal cancer screening response efficacy, and perceived social support for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly from baseline. Participants reported low levels of intrusive thoughts about CRC. CONCLUSION: Knowledge and favorable perceptions of colorectal cancer screening increased, as did knowledge about genetic and environmental risk assessment, after exposure to the study intervention. Further research is needed to assess genetic and environmental risk assessment uptake and impact at the population level.

A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is underutilized. The objective of the current study was to determine whether targeted and tailored interventions can increase screening use. METHODS: A total of 1546 primary care practice patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to 4 study groups: control (387 patients), Standard Intervention (SI) (387 patients), Tailored Intervention (TI) (386 patients), or Tailored Intervention plus Phone (TIP) (386 patients). The control group received usual care throughout the study. The SI group received a targeted intervention by mail (ie, screening invitation letter, informational booklet, stool blood test, and reminder letter). The TI group received the targeted intervention with tailored "message pages." The TIP group received the targeted intervention, tailored message pages, and a telephone reminder. Intervention group contacts were repeated 1 year later. Screening was assessed 24 months after randomization. RESULTS: Screening rates in study groups were 33% in the control group, 46% in the SI group, 44% in the TI group, and 48% in the TIP group. Screening was found to be significantly higher in all 3 intervention groups compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] of 1.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.3-2.5], OR of 1.6 [95% CI, 1.2-2.1], and OR of 1.9 [95% CI, 1.4-2.6], respectively), but did not vary significantly across intervention groups. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that older age, education, past cancer screening, screening preference, response efficacy, social support and influence, and exposure to study interventions were positive predictors of screening. Having worries and concerns about screening was found to be a significant negative predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted and tailored interventions were found to increase colorectal cancer screening use. However, additional research is needed to determine how to increase the effect of such interventions in primary care.

Effectiveness of complete diagnostic examination in clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Thorough follow-up of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) result, or a complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE), is recommended as routine care on the basis of findings from colorectal cancer (CRC) screening trials. CDE involves either colonoscopy or the combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy and double contrast barium enema X-ray. However, little evidence outside clinical screening trial settings has been reported in the literature to support CDE performance. The focus of this study was to determine the impact of CDE in primary care practice settings. METHODS: We determined diagnostic outcomes for 461 adult patients with a positive FOBT result in 318 primary care practices in southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey. Sociodemographic data were collected and CDE status was ascertained for these patients. Polytomous logistic models were used to identify whether having CDE was associated with subsequently being diagnosed with lower gastrointestinal "neoplastic disease" or "other gastrointestinal disease" as compared to "normal findings. RESULTS: Patients who underwent CDE were significantly more likely to have a reported diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia than normal findings (adjusted odds ratio = 3.65, 95% confidence interval = 1.58-8.39, p = 0.02). CDE performance did not result in the differential diagnosis of other gastrointestinal disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a positive screening FOBT who underwent CDE were more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal neoplasia than with less serious conditions or have normal findings. Results support the use of CDE in CRC screening.