Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

Facilitators and Barriers of a Health Department-based Mailed Fecal Testing Program.

BACKGROUND Mailed at-home stool testing offers a promising strategy for overcoming barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in vulnerable populations. This paper evaluates the facilitators and barriers of successful implementation of a mailed fecal testing program among Medicaid populations within a health department setting.METHOD Interviews were conducted with key informants involved in intervention start-up and implementation tasks. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to design the interview guide and structure the analysis. Axial coding was used to connect the themes to each other under the major categories of facilitators and barriers.RESULTS Overall, the process evaluation suggests that with strong partnerships, effective champions, and existing infrastructure, a large county health department can successfully implement a mailed fecal testing program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries. The identified facilitators and challenges to implementation provide important information for similar emerging programs.LIMITATIONS The sample size of this evaluation is small. Additionally, we are unable to discern whether participating stakeholders' responses represent the feelings of non-interviewed staff, program implementers, or participants. We were not able to collect data on patient perspectives of the intervention. The nursing staff and interns were not able to be included in the process evaluation. Lastly, the information taken from this process evaluation may not be applicable to organizations and systems with different attributes.CONCLUSION The process evaluation suggests strong partnerships, effective champions, and elegant program designs were key contributors to successful implementation of a CRC screening program targeted at Medicaid beneficiaries in a large county health department.

Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS: In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return. RESULTS: In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Perspectives of American Indians in Eastern North Carolina on Socio-cultural Factors that Influence Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions.

American Indians (AI) have disproportionately high rates of colorectal cancer (CRC), but there is relatively little research focused on developing AI CRC screening interventions. We held six focus groups with AIs in rural Eastern U.S. (n=74) and analyzed the qualitative data from them in order to identify individual and socio-cultural factors that influence AI CRC screening decisions. Screening fear and anxiety was a central theme of the focus groups. For example, participants told stories about how late-stage cancer diagnoses and deaths in the community contributed to their fears and cancer fatalism. Furthermore, CRC screening fears were reinforced by health communication norms that limited productive conversations about CRC screening. Our findings indicate that culturally adapted interventions, such as CRC screening decision aids, are needed to help AIs communicate and make informed decisions about CRC screening with support from family and health care providers. More research is needed on the influence of these interventions on CRC screening intentions, social norms, and shared decision-making.

Psychologically distinct classes of motor behavior inferred from individual differences: evidence from a sequential stacking task.

A number of studies have demonstrated regularities in how individuals select and perform single object manipulations, but little work has been concerned with the manipulation of multiple objects. To this end, the authors asked participants to stack a set of linearly spaced containers onto various goal locations. Our aim was to determine whether participants adopted specific strategies to complete this task. We focused on whether the distance between the objects, the goal location of the objects, or both, determined the classes of movement sequences that individuals used to perform the task. The results showed that some individuals tended to use one hand for lifting and releasing the containers whereas other individuals tended to use both hands for lifting and releasing the containers. Those participants who tended to use one hand varied which hand was used according to the goal location of the containers but not the distance between containers. The emergence of these individual differences provides a new basis for inferring psychologically distinct classes of motor behavior.