© 2004 by Oxford University Press
© 2004 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
A Randomized Trial of Direct Mailing of Fecal Occult Blood Tests To Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening
Affiliations of authors: Division of Environmental and Occupational Health (TRC, RMJ, LKK, GDW, SJM, JEC, DE), Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health (RMJ), and Department of Family Practice and Community Health, Medical School (MWY), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis; VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN (LKK).
Correspondence to: Timothy R. Church, PhD, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, MMC 807, 420 Delaware St., SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (e-mail: trc{at}cccs.umn.edu)
Background: Although colorectal cancer screening by using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or barium enema x-ray reduces the incidence of and death from colorectal cancer, the rate of colorectal cancer screening in the general population is low. We conducted a randomized trial consisting of direct mailing of FOBT kits to increase colorectal cancer screening among residents of Wright County, Minnesota, a community in which colorectal cancer screening was promoted. Methods: At baseline, we mailed a questionnaire about colorectal cancer screening to a random sample of Wright County residents aged 50 years or older who were randomly selected from the Minnesota State Driver’s License and Identification Card database (estimated N = 1451). The sample was randomly allocated into three equal subgroups: one group (control) received only the questionnaire, one group received FOBT kits by direct mail with reminders, and one group received FOBT kits by direct mail without reminders. Study participants were sent a follow-up questionnaire 1 year after baseline. We used the responses to the questionnaires to estimate the 1-year change in self-reported screening rates in each group and the differences in the changes among the groups, along with the associated bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: At baseline, the estimated response rate was 86.5%, self-reported adherence to FOBT guidelines was 21.5%, and overall adherence to any colorectal cancer screening test guidelines was 55.8%. The 1-year rate changes in absolute percentage for self-reported adherence to FOBT use were 1.5% (95% CI = –2.9% to 5.9%) for the control group, 16.9% (95% CI = 11.5% to 22.3%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-no-reminders group, and 23.2% (95% CI = 17.2% to 29.3%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-reminders group. The 1-year rate changes for self-reported adherence to any colorectal cancer screening test were 7.8% (95% CI = 3.2% to 12.0%) for the control group, 13.2% (95% CI = 8.4% to 18.2%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-no-reminders group, and 14.1% (95% CI = 9.1% to 19.1%) for the direct-mail-FOBT-with-reminders group. Conclusion: Direct mailing of FOBT kits combined with follow-up reminders promotes more rapid increases in the use of FOBT and nearly doubles the increase in overall rate of adherence to colorectal cancer screening guidelines in a general population compared with a community-wide screening promotion and awareness campaign.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. D. Sequist, A. M. Zaslavsky, R. Marshall, R. H. Fletcher, and J. Z. Ayanian Patient and Physician Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial Arch Intern Med, February 23, 2009; 169(4): 364 - 371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Fenton, R. J. Reid, L.-M. Baldwin, J. G. Elmore, D. S.M. Buist, and P. Franks Influence of Primary Care Use on Population Delivery of Colorectal Cancer Screening Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2009; 18(2): 640 - 645. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. B. Potter, L. Phengrasamy, E. S. Hudes, S. J. McPhee, and J. M.E. Walsh Offering Annual Fecal Occult Blood Tests at Annual Flu Shot Clinics Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2009; 7(1): 17 - 23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A F van Rijn, L G M van Rossum, M Deutekom, R J F Laheij, P M M Bossuyt, P Fockens, E Dekker, and J B M J Jansen Getting adequate information across to colorectal cancer screening subjects can be difficult J Med Screen, September 1, 2008; 15(3): 149 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. J. O'Connor, S. M. Carlin-Menter, P. B. Celestino, P. Bax, A. Brown, K. M. Cummings, and J. E. Bauer Using Direct Mail to Prompt Smokers to Call a Quitline Health Promot Pract, July 1, 2008; 9(3): 262 - 270. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Jones, S. J. Mongin, D. Lazovich, T. R. Church, and M. W. Yeazel Validity of Four Self-reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in a General Population: Differences over Time and by Intervention Assignment Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 777 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. E. Basch, R. L. Wolf, C. H. Brouse, C. Shmukler, A. Neugut, L. T. DeCarlo, and S. Shea Telephone Outreach to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in an Urban Minority Population Am J Public Health, December 1, 2006; 96(12): 2246 - 2253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Fisher, C. Fikry, and A. B. Troxel Cutting Cost and Increasing Access to Colorectal Cancer Screening: Another Approach to Following the Guidelines Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., January 1, 2006; 15(1): 108 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. R. Church Offering Patients Colorectal Cancer Screening J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 328 - 329. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Segnan, C. Senore, B. Andreoni, A. Arrigoni, L. Bisanti, A. Cardelli, G. Castiglione, C. Crosta, R. DiPlacido, A. Ferrari, et al. Randomized Trial of Different Screening Strategies for Colorectal Cancer: Patient Response and Detection Rates J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 347 - 357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|