SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • primary prevention;
  • cancer screening;
  • colonic neoplasms;
  • intervention studies;
  • prepaid health plans

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

BACKGROUND:

Evidence-based interventions have been found effective in increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Translating these successful interventions into real world settings, such as health plans, can be challenging.

METHODS:

CHOICE (Communicating Health Options through Information and Cancer Education) is a controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level intervention to increase use of recommended CRC screening tests. The patient-level intervention was a patient decision aid and stage-targeted brochures, mailed to eligible health plan members, to provide information about CRC, available screening tests, and how to obtain CRC screening at their physicians' practices. The practice-level intervention was academic detailing to prepare practices to facilitate CRC testing once the patient was activated by the decision aid. Surveys and claims data will be used to assess CRC screening test completion.

RESULTS:

Thirty-two primary care practices in Florida and Georgia participated. The authors recruited 443 participating health plan members for the trial; 211 were patients in intervention practices, and 232 were in usual care practices. Study participants reflected an insured population; the majority were white and aged <60 years. The authors also mailed the intervention to 343 people from intervention practices who did not respond to the eligibility or baseline survey. Receipt of screening in that group will be compared with screening among 319 people from usual care practices who did not respond to these surveys using claims data.

CONCLUSIONS:

The CHOICE study will demonstrate the effect of 2 combined evidence-based interventions on CRC screening test completion among health plan members. Cancer 2010. © 2010 American Cancer Society.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosis and the third leading cause of cancer death among men and women living in the United States.1 In 2008, an estimated 148,810 people in the United States were diagnosed with CRC, and 49,960 died from the disease.2

Although use of CRC screening has increased since 2002, current screening rates remain modest, with only 60% of age-eligible US adults up to date with screening in 2006.2, 3 Another analysis using National Health Interview Survey data indicated that on average about 50% of US adults obtained CRC screening within recommended time frames.4 Despite strong evidence and recommendations supporting its use, CRC screening is significantly underused.2, 3

Effective and efficient methods to promote colon cancer screening are needed to increase screening utilization in clinical practice and to decrease morbidity and mortality from colon cancer. Furthermore, it is important to test whether interventions that are found efficacious in controlled trials can be translated to less controlled settings, such as health insurance plans.5-9 The CHOICE (Communicating Health Options through Information and Cancer Education) trial tests the effect of a combination of 2 evidence-based interventions, a decision aid for health plan members and academic detailing for physician practices, on CRC screening test completion by health plan members. This article describes the study design, interventions, and baseline findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

CHOICE is a collaboration between 2 university research groups (at Emory University and the University of North Carolina) and Aetna's Southeast Region Quality Management Department.

Identification of Potential Participants

This study received institutional review board approval from Emory University and the University of North Carolina. A partial Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) waiver was granted to allow access to information in Aetna's claims data repository for the purposes of identifying eligible health plan members. In addition, a full HIPAA waiver was obtained to send the decision aid intervention to nonresponders who were potentially eligible in the intervention group and to permit access to follow-up claims data for nonresponders in both the usual care and intervention groups.

Practice Recruitment and Randomization

To identify potential physician practices for participation, the study team obtained from Aetna a list of primary care physicians (family practice, general practice, and internal medicine) in the Atlanta, Tampa, and Orlando areas who participated in the Aetna health maintenance organization (HMO) product. Medical practices recruited to the study had a minimum of 50 Aetna members aged between 52 and 75 years. Practices were recruited with a mailed introductory packet and telephone follow-up, supplemented with in-person visits, if requested by the practice.

As practices were enrolled into the study, they were grouped into 3 waves of 10 practices each. The first 2 waves were randomized into intervention and usual care groups. Randomization was done using matched pairs and a blocking procedure. Practices were matched on the number of study-eligible members per practice and rural versus urban practices. These variables were chosen because they may influence the effect of the intervention. When the third wave was recruited, intervention practice groups were unbalanced in practice size. Thus, purposive assignment to treatment group was used, resulting in a hybrid randomization procedure. Two additional practices were not randomized but included. These 2 practices initially were used as pilot practices (1 intervention and 1 usual care). Because the intervention was not modified, and there were no differences in member characteristics for these 2 practices, the 2 practices were also included in the main trial.

Study Population and Recruitment

Potentially eligible participants were identified using claims data from Aetna for members between the ages of 52 and 80 years whose primary care physicians had agreed to participate in CHOICE. Members who were not current with CRC screening were eligible for the study. Potentially eligible members were identified by claims data in 3 waves across 2005 and 2006 as practices were recruited into the study. A final claims extract was obtained in March 2007 to identify newly eligible members in participating practices and to determine whether any of the eligibility survey nonrespondents were no longer eligible for the study because of new medical exclusions. Each extract included data for the current year and the 3 previous years, which is the time frame contained in the member claims database.

Members were considered up to date with screening, and therefore ineligible, if claims data indicated that they had received a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within the past year or a sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, or barium enema during the period covered by the claims data. Other exclusions included individuals at increased risk for CRC (because the intervention was designed for average-risk patients), those with medical conditions that would limit their ability to participate in the study or might cause them to be considered inappropriate candidates for screening, and those unable to communicate effectively in English. Above average-risk persons were defined as adults with a personal history of CRC or polyps, a known history of CRC or polyps in a first-degree relative, or a known history of inflammatory bowel disease.

Potentially eligible members identified by claims data were sent a letter and a brief eligibility survey. The eligibility survey was used to obtain information about receipt of CRC screening that might not be in the claims data and to identify people at increased risk for CRC for whom the decision aid would not be appropriate (eg, persons with a first-degree relative with a history of CRC). Members who responded to the eligibility survey and who were eligible were sent a baseline survey. Those who responded to the baseline survey were enrolled.

The primary method of survey administration for health plan members was by mail. However, after 2 mailings (approximately 1 month apart), survey nonresponders were given the opportunity to complete the surveys by telephone with trained research staff. An Internet survey was available for those who preferred to respond online.

Theoretical Foundations of the Interventions

The intervention consisted of a combination of 2 evidence-based interventions, 1 targeted at the practice level (academic detailing) and the other at the patient level (decision aid). These 2 components of the intervention draw on constructs from Social Cognitive Theory and The Transtheoretical Model or Stages of Change Model.10-12 Academic detailing sessions targeted constructs of collective self-efficacy and strategies of goal-setting and behavioral monitoring.10, 11 The decision aid intervention was based on constructs from the Transtheoretical Model12 focusing on the precontemplation (not considering being screened), contemplation (considering being screened), and preparation (getting ready to be screened) stages.

Practice-Level Intervention: Academic Detailing

The academic detailing intervention was modeled after previously successful detailing interventions to improve cancer screening in primary care practices.6-9 The goal of detailing was to prepare practices to facilitate CRC testing once patients were activated by the decision aid. Our previous work suggests that practice-level barriers are important barriers to test completion.13

Detailing sessions were led by 2 of the investigators from the University of North Carolina (M.P., C.L.) and 2 general internists at Emory University. Academic detailers participated in a 3-hour training session, at which materials and processes for the detailing were reviewed.

Physician academic detailers visited each intervention practice twice during the study, once soon after randomization and again after most patients from the practice had received their decision aids. At the first meeting, the 2 physician detailers and a research assistant met with participating physicians and support staff. The lead detailing physician gave a 15-minute presentation to review the burden of colon cancer, current recommendations and screening tests, barriers to colon cancer screening, and previous interventions shown to increase screening test completion in primary care practices. Practice-specific claims-based screening rates were presented to the groups to provide a baseline measure of screening completion. The detailing physicians showed clips from the decision aid.

Detailing physicians then led a discussion about the practice's colon screening strategies, including preferred and available testing options, current office systems to facilitate screening such as reminders, electronic medical records, and whether the office performs in-office flexible sigmoidoscopy or FOBT. Referral practices for colonoscopy procedures also were reviewed. Practices were asked to explicitly map current processes for colon cancer screening, including procedures for receiving patient phone calls and scheduling referrals.

During these meetings, detailers led discussions about plans to modify office practices to better accommodate patient requests for specific tests. Physicians and staff from the practice helped to develop a plan in consultation with the physician detailers. Detailers recorded information from the discussion and helped clarify the plan. These written plans were sent to the practices after the meeting for confirmation.

The second session was held after most patient interventions were mailed. The same detailing team returned to practices whenever possible. Detailers reviewed plans with the practices and addressed questions or concerns including any procedural barriers the practices had faced. For 2 practices, these sessions were conducted over the phone.

To standardize the academic detailing process and assure quality control, standardized notes were taken during detailing sessions, and detailers held a debriefing after each session.

Member-Level Intervention: Decision Aid

The decision aid used in the CHOICE trial is a modified version of a previously tested decision aid, which had been found to be effective at increasing CRC screening rates.5 We refined the content and layout of the decision aid to include Web-based interactive delivery. After these changes, usability testing was performed using cognitive interviewing techniques. The decision aid was produced in DVD and VHS videotape formats to maximize usability by participants.

The duration of the decision aid was about 22 minutes. It included: 1) information on CRC and screening and 2) information about the specific screening tests and comparative information between tests (eg, efficacy). In the final section of the decision aid, the patient is asked to choose stage-targeted information in the form of a color-coded brochure corresponding to their readiness to be screened.

Decision aid mailings and follow-up

Decision aids were sent to intervention group members in a package that contained a tailored letter, decision aid with instructions for viewing, stage-targeted brochures, a copayment and referral information sheet specific to Aetna members, a CRC screening options chart, and a decision aid survey. The survey assessed the use of and reactions to the materials, and evaluated perceived changes in knowledge as a result of viewing the decision aid.

Participants in the intervention group who had not been screened as determined by self-report on the 1-year survey were sent a booster intervention. The booster consisted of a letter encouraging screening, information on how to learn more about CRC and CRC screening tests, and an action plan with steps to complete recommended screening tests.

Usual Care Condition

Usual care practices received no academic detailing. All members affiliated with practices in both the intervention and usual care groups received Aetna annual reminders to obtain CRC screening.

Mailings to Nonresponders

To assess the effect of the intervention in a broader context, decision aid packages were sent to nonresponding members in intervention practices. These were health plan members in participating practices who did not respond to either the eligibility survey or the baseline survey but had not refused participation in the study (Fig. 1). These members will be included in the intention to treat analyses for CRC screening test completion based on analysis of claims data.

thumbnail image

Figure 1. A CONSORT (Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) diagram of member eligibility, participation, and group assignment is shown.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Data Collection and Measures

Practice level measures

Intervention and usual care practices completed brief surveys to assess their CRC screening practices, referrals, and quality improvement initiatives before the intervention and again at the end of the study.

CRC outcome measures

We measured completion of CRC screening for health plan members through Aetna claims data and participants self-report. Claims data were assessed for CRC screening test completion for members in both the intervention and usual care groups who had completed the eligibility and baseline surveys, as well as those who did not complete the eligibility and/or baseline surveys but did not refuse participation (Fig. 1). We measured CRC screening test completion by participant self-report through the baseline survey and follow-up surveys. Follow-up surveys were sent at 12 months, and at 18 months for those who were unscreened at 1 year. Interest in CRC screening, intent to ask providers about screening, and readiness to be screened also were assessed on the baseline and follow-up surveys.

Social cognitive construct measures

We measured social cognitive constructs in baseline and follow-up surveys as potential mediating variables. We performed factor analyses on survey items measuring attitudes, beliefs,14 and perceptions about CRC and cancer risk15 to group the individual items into discrete dimensions. Factor analyses revealed 4 clearly delineated composite variables: 1) Perceived Risk of colon cancer (4 items: eg, what is your chance of getting colon cancer in your lifetime; response was on a 5-point scale from very low to very high); 2) General Beliefs about colon cancer (4 items: eg, a person with colon cancer would always have symptoms; response options were on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree); 3) Fears about CRC screening (4 items: eg, I am afraid of having an abnormal screening test result for colon cancer; response options were on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree); and 4) Intrusive Thoughts about colon cancer (3 items: eg, during the past month, how often have you thought about your chances of getting colon cancer; response options were on a 4-point scale from not at all to almost all of the time).

Other social cognitive items measured participants' knowledge of the age at which CRC screening should begin; perceptions about whether participants had enough information on CRC screening in general, as well as whether they had enough information about specific screening tests; intentions to talk to their physician about CRC screening (2 items); willingness to pay for screening tests16; and desire to participate in medical decisions.17

12-Month and 18-Month Follow-Up Surveys

Approximately 1 year from receipt of baseline surveys, we mailed participants 12-month surveys. Participants who reported that they were not screened at 12 months were sent the 18-month survey. Outcome measures and social cognitive construct measures were identical to the baseline survey.

Power Calculations and Statistical Analyses

Our power calculations were based on our expectation that the proportion screened in the intervention group would be 15% higher than the proportion screened in the usual care group (40% in the intervention group and 25% in the usual care group). This estimate was based on the efficacy trial of the CRC decision aid5 and related research on academic detailing.7, 9 To account for the design, a cluster randomized trial, we assumed a conservative estimate of the intraclass correlation, 0.0225 or less. On the basis of alpha = .05, a 2-tailed test, with power set at 0.80, and 10 practices in each arm would have sufficient power to detect a 15% difference in the proportion screened if at least 25 participants from each practice, or 500 total participants, were enrolled. To ensure a sample of this size, allowing for some practice dropout and member nonparticipation, we aimed to recruit at least 30 practices (15 in each group), with each practice having a minimum of 50 Aetna members between the ages of 52 and 75 years.

We will use an intent to treat approach for analyses, using outcome data on recent CRC screening. We will perform 2 separate analyses. First, we will analyze claims data for all health plan members who were determined to be eligible at the start of the study, and who did not opt out (and thus received the intervention if their practice was randomized to that treatment group), even if they did not complete survey questionnaires. These analyses will include both active participants and nonrespondents in practices participating in the CHOICE trial. Second, we will analyze CRC screening test completion for those who actively enrolled in the trial and completed surveys.

For baseline results in this paper, we report practice and member participation rates. We also report descriptive statistics from members' eligibility and baseline surveys and the participating practice surveys. We compared demographic characteristics of those who responded to the eligibility survey to those who did not respond or refused, using chi-square tests. We also compared demographic and social cognitive characteristics for the intervention and usual care groups using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

Medical Practices

Two hundred forty-two practices in 2 states (170 in Florida, 72 in Georgia) were asked to participate to obtain our target of 32 practices (15% participation rate). The main reasons given for nonparticipation in the trial were that the practices were too busy and that they did not want more paperwork. Comparing characteristics of the practices in the intervention and usual care groups revealed equal numbers of practices with electronic medical records (n = 6). More practices in the usual care group reported having a CRC reminder system in place than in the intervention group (7 vs 4) (Table 1).

Table 1. Comparison of Intervention and Usual Care Practices (n=32)
DescriptionIntervention, n=16Usual Care, n=16
  1. CRC indicates colorectal cancer.

State  
 Florida89
 Georgia87
Total age-eligible Aetna patients  
 Mean144205
 Median13174
No. of primary care physicians per practice  
 146
 2-597
 >533
Has electronic medical record66
Has CRC reminder system47

During the academic detailing sessions at intervention practices, a variety of office staff attended the sessions, including physicians, nurses, referral coordinators, and schedulers. For physicians, 33 of the 53 (62%) physicians in the intervention group attended the first academic detailing session. For the first sessions, an average of 4 other staff members attended. For the second detailing sessions, 20 physicians attended and, on average, 1 other staff member participated. Two of the sessions were conducted by phone because of scheduling difficulties.

Eligible Members by Claims Data

From claims data, we obtained information for 5759 Aetna HMO members (Fig. 1). We excluded 1739 people because of high-risk factors for CRC or other ineligibility criteria. The most common exclusions, based on claims data, included 1119 people who had previously been treated for cancer, and 495 who had a history of coronary artery disease. Of the remaining 4020 members, 27% (n = 1066) were found to be up to date with CRC screening.

Eligible Members and Participants

We sent eligibility surveys to the remaining 2954 potentially eligible members to identify those who were ineligible for reasons not captured by the claims data. Among these, 1593 members (61%) returned eligibility surveys, 467 (61%) completed baseline surveys, and, 443 (211 in the intervention group and 232 in the control group) were included in analyses of baseline data.

A total of 662 members did not respond to eligibility surveys (n = 524) or baseline surveys (n = 138). Among these nonrespondents, 343 were patients of intervention practices, of whom 297 were sent intervention materials; 319 were patients in usual care practices.

Group Comparisons

By using information from eligibility surveys, we compared characteristics of those who completed baseline surveys with those who did not respond to baseline surveys or withdrew from further participation (Table 2). The major difference between those who responded and those who did not or refused was race; whites were more likely to participate than blacks and those of other races (P < .0001).

Table 2. Demographic Comparisons of Those Who Responded to Baseline Surveys With Those Who Did Not Respond or Refused
DescriptionResponderNonresponderRefuserP
No.%No.%No.%
  1. GED indicates General Education Development.

Overall44357.513817.918924.5 
Sex       
 Women27562.17957.212264.6.40
 Men16837.95942.86735.4 
State       
 Florida25156.77755.810756.6.98
 Georgia19243.36144.28243.4 
Age, y       
 52-5933675.811180.412968.3.08
 60-648719.62215.94222.2 
 65-69163.653.6157.9 
 70-8240.900.031.6 
Race       
 White/Caucasian35680.98460.914074.5<.0001
 Black/African American6715.24230.43217.0 
 Other173.9128.7168.5 
Education       
 High school, GED, or less8719.74029.04825.5.23
 Some college or technical school15033.94935.56233.0 
 College graduate11526.02820.34222.3 
 Postgraduate or professional degree9020.42115.23619.1 
Health       
 Poor/fair419.31913.82714.4.27
 Good21047.65640.67640.6 
 Very good13630.84935.55831.0 
 Excellent5412.21410.12613.9 
Smoking       
 No, I never smoked19945.05842.09349.5.20
 No, but I am a former smoker18040.75137.06333.5 
 Yes6314.32921.03217.0 

Among 443 participants, most were women, white, and younger than 60 years (Table 3). The majority had at least some college education; about a third had an income between $50,000 and $100,000. About half reported no chronic illnesses and about half visited the physician 3 or more times over the past year.

Table 3. Comparison of Member Characteristics for Intervention and Usual Care Groups
DescriptionOverallInterventionUsual CareP
No.%No.%No.%
  1. GED indicates General Education Development; CRC, colorectal cancer.

Overall443 21147.623252.4 
Sex       
 Women27562.112860.714763.4.56
 Men16837.98339.38536.6 
Age, y       
 52-5933675.816276.817475.0.66
 60-8210724.24923.25825.0 
Race       
 White non-Hispanic35680.916075.819685.6.002
 Black/African American6715.24521.3229.6 
 Other173.962.8114.8 
Education       
 High school, GED, or less8719.74320.44419.0.70
 Some college or technical school15033.97334.67733.3 
 College graduate11526.05727.05825.1 
 Postgraduate or professional degree9020.43818.05222.5 
Income       
 ≤$50,00016337.17535.78838.4.15
 $50,001-$100,00014833.77033.37834.1 
 >$100,0005913.43617.12310.0 
 Do not know/prefer not to answer6915.72913.84017.5 
State       
 Florida25156.79243.615968.5<.001
 Georgia19243.311956.47331.5 
Chronic illness       
 022450.610248.312252.6.37
 ≥121949.410951.711047.4 
No. of doctor visits within past year       
 04510.62110.42410.7.33
 1-217440.87537.39944.0 
 ≥320748.610552.210245.3 
CRC screening history       
 Yes20847.010147.910746.1.71
 No23553.011052.112553.9 
Screened at baseline       
 Yes449.92210.4229.5.75
 No/unknown39990.118989.621090.5 
Screening intentions (among those not screened at baseline, n=399)       
 Yes23157.911460.311755.7.35
 No16842.17539.79344.3 

There were some differences at baseline between the intervention and usual care groups, which we expected because we did not allocate at the patient level. Specifically, there were more white patients in the usual care group and more patients in Florida participating in the usual care group. A little less than half in both groups reported ever having received CRC screening on the eligibility survey. When asked again on the baseline survey, 10% in both groups reported screening within the past 3 months since completing the baseline survey. Among those who did not report recent screening, 60% in the intervention and 56% in the usual care group (P = .35) reported an intention to undergo screening in the next 6 months.

Social Cognitive Factors at Baseline

At baseline, about 75% of participants perceived their CRC risk to be medium to high; most did not report having intrusive thoughts about getting colon cancer (Table 4). Less than half of the patients expressed agreement with statements about colon cancer and CRC screening that would denote lower belief in the benefits of CRC screening. Less than half answered the knowledge question correctly. Most reported that they had already talked to their physicians about CRC screening. About 30% reported not having enough information about getting CRC screening, and >40% reported that they did not have enough information on types of screening tests. Approximately 40% expressed concerns about receiving CRC screening. Nearly 40% were willing to pay $200 or more out of their pocket to obtain CRC screening. Comparing the 2 groups in regard to social cognitive characteristics reveals some differences in general beliefs about colon cancer screening. Patients in the usual care group had a higher level of agreement with statements that indicate lower belief in the benefits of CRC screening. Other characteristics were similar.

Table 4. Comparison of Social Cognitive Characteristics for Intervention and Usual Care Groups
DescriptionOverallInterventionUsual CareP
No.%No.%No.%
  • CRC indicates colorectal cancer.

  • a

    Higher agreement denotes less belief in the benefits of CRC screening.

Perceived risk       
 Low10022.74823.15222.4.79
 Medium24655.911354.313357.3 
 High9421.44722.64720.3 
General beliefs concerning CRC screeninga       
 Disagree12327.87334.65021.6.01
 Neutral12127.35124.27030.2 
 Agree19944.98741.211248.3 
Fears about screening       
 Unconcerned18642.19344.39340.1.37
 Neutral8318.84220.04117.7 
 Concerned17339.17535.79842.2 
Intrusive thoughts       
 Not at all29667.113966.215768.0.92
 Sometimes13530.66631.46929.9 
 Often102.352.452.2 
Knowledge of age at which screening is recommended       
 Correct20046.09345.110746.7.74
 Incorrect/do not know23554.011354.912253.3 
Medical decision preference       
 Make decision myself317.0178.1146.0.09
 Make decision with doctors opinion18642.29344.59340.1 
 Make decision together with doctor19644.48239.211449.1 
 Let doctor decide with my opinion184.194.393.9 
 Let doctor decide102.383.820.9 
Talk to doctor       
 Already talked to doctor24555.312358.312252.6.46
 Likely to talk to doctor within next 6 months7917.83416.14519.4 
 Unlikely to talk to doctor within next 6 months11926.95425.66528.0 
Enough information regarding getting screening       
 Yes, definitely13129.86430.86728.9.70
 Yes, probably18040.98741.89340.1 
 No12929.35727.47231.0 
Enough information regarding type of screening       
 Yes, definitely9722.15024.04720.3.63
 Yes, probably16036.47536.18536.8 
 No18241.58339.99942.9 
Willingness to pay       
 ≤$20.007116.73919.43214.3.29
 $20.01-$60.0019546.08441.811149.8 
 $60.01-$200.0012329.05929.46428.7 
 >$200.00358.3199.5167.2 

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

In this paper, we present the methods and baseline findings from the CHOICE study. Some aspects of study design, recruitment process, and participants could affect results of the trial and warrant discussion.

First, for the practice intervention, we successfully recruited an adequate number of practices. However, recruitment was more difficult than anticipated. We approached 242 practices to enroll 32 practices. As a result, our participating practices may be a select group that are more interested in CRC screening than other primary care practices, and are therefore willing to participate in a research study. If our intervention proves to be successful, our results may not be generalizable to other, less motivated practices.

Among practices participating in the study, the usual care and intervention practices appear similar for many of the characteristics we measured. An important difference, however, is that the usual care group has more practices with a CRC reminder system in place. If this difference has an effect, we expect it would bias the results toward the null, because usual care practices may have more effective CRC screening systems in place compared with intervention practices. In addition, when considering the practice level intervention, not all physicians attended detailing sessions. This could potentially attenuate its effect.

For the member level intervention, our study design was to recruit from an insurance plan. Thus, our results may not be generalizable to the general US population. Furthermore, those members who chose to participate may not reflect the population of insured patients in these 2 states, especially in regard to CRC screenings. Most participants reported believing that screening is beneficial, having talked to their physician about screening, and having enough information about the tests. Participants may be more responsive to the patient level intervention than those who did not participate.

We allocated practices based on practice size and surrounding population, anticipating that these could have an effect on the intervention. As with any allocation method, there may be unmeasured differences between groups that could affect results. Because we allocated participating members at the practice level, we expected some baseline differences between participants in the intervention and usual care groups. We noted differences with regard to race and state. We will control for these baseline differences in outcomes analyses.

Finally, our study design could activate both groups to have colon cancer screening. The participant recruitment and data collection process addressed CRC and could serve as a reminder. Therefore, it may be more difficult to demonstrate an effect of the intervention, because both groups are activated by the data collection process. To address this, we will compare results for participants in the trial to those who did not participate using claims data. Making this comparison will help us determine the extent to which activation occurred.

Despite these limitations, the CHOICE trial addresses an important issue, the underutilization of CRC screening among a population with health insurance. CHOICE will determine whether 2 combined evidence-based interventions implemented in community settings increases CRC screening test completion among health plan members.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

We thank the following for their assistance with the study: Raquel Vazquez; Lauren Taglialatela; Jonathan Hawley; Vicki Whitlatch; Jennifer Griffith, DrPH; Alison Brenner; Murtaza Cassoobhoy, MD; and Lisa Bernstein, MD.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES

This study was supported by grant number PH000018 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  4. RESULTS
  5. DISCUSSION
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
  8. REFERENCES
  • 1
    Department of Health and Human Services. United States Cancer Statistics: 2004 Incidence and Mortality. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CEDC, National Cancer Institute; 2007.
  • 2
    American Cancer Society. How Many People Get Colorectal Cancer? Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_2_1X_How_Many_People_Get_Colorectal_Cancer.asp?sitearea= Accessed May 7, 2007.
  • 3
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Use of colorectal cancer tests—United States, 2002, 2004, and 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008; 57: 253-258.
  • 4
    Shapiro JA, Seeff LC, Thompson TD, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Colorectal cancer test use from the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 1623-1630.
  • 5
    Pignone M, Harris R, Kinsinger L. Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2000; 133: 761-769.
  • 6
    Dietrich AJ, Carney PA, Winchell CW, Sox CH, Reed SC. An office systems approach to cancer prevention in primary care. Cancer Pract. 1997; 5: 375-381.
  • 7
    Goldstein MG, Niaura R, Willey C, et al. An academic detailing intervention to disseminate physician-delivered smoking cessation counseling: smoking cessation outcomes of the Physicians Counseling Smokers Project. Prev Med. 2003; 26: 185-196.
  • 8
    Siegal D, Lopez J, Meier J, et al. Academic detailing to improve antihypertensive prescribing patterns. Am J Hypertens. 2003; 16: 508-511.
  • 9
    Solomon DH, Van Houten L, Glynn RJ, et al. Academic detailing to improve use of broad-spectrum antibiotic at an academic medical center. Arch Intern Med. 2001; 161: 1897-1902.
  • 10
    Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
  • 11
    Bandura A. Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1995.
  • 12
    Prochaska JO, Redding CA, Evers KE. The transtheoretical model and stages of change. In: GlanzK, RimerBK, ViswanathK, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008: 97-121.
  • 13
    Kim J, Whitney A, Hayter S, et al. Development and initial testing of a computer-based patient decision aid to promote colorectal cancer screening for primary care practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005; 5: 36.
  • 14
    Glanz K, Steffen AD, Taglialatela LA. Effects of colon cancer risk counseling for first-degree relatives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007; 16: 1485-1491.
  • 15
    Lipkus IM, Rimer BK, Lyna PR, Pradhan AA, Conaway M, Woods-Powell CT. Colorectal screening patterns and perceptions of risk among African-American users of a community health center. J Community Health. 1996; 21: 409-427.
  • 16
    Jonas DE, Russell LB, Sandler RS, Chou J, Pignone M. Value of patient time invested in the colonoscopy screening process: time requirements for colonoscopy study. Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 56-65.
  • 17
    Degner LF, Kristjanson LJ, Bowman D, et al. Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1485-1492.