Steffen Laurie E, Boucher Kenneth M, Damron Barbara H, Pappas Lisa M, Walters Scott T, Flores Kristina G, Boonyasiriwat Watcharaporn, Vernon Sally W, Stroup Antoinette M, Schwartz Marc D, Edwards Sandra L, Kohlmann Wendy K, Lowery Jan T, Wiggins Charles L, Hill Deirdre A, Higginbotham John C, Burt Randall, Simmons Rebecca G, Kinney Anita Y
University of New Mexico Cancer Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Department of Oncologic Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Sep;24(9):1311-8. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0150. Epub 2015 Jun 22.
We tested the efficacy of a remote tailored intervention Tele-Cancer Risk Assessment and Evaluation (TeleCARE) compared with a mailed educational brochure for improving colonoscopy uptake among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients and examined subgroup differences based on participant reported cost barriers.
Family members of colorectal cancer patients who were not up-to-date with colonoscopy were randomly assigned as family units to TeleCARE (N = 232) or an educational brochure (N = 249). At the 9-month follow-up, a cost resource letter listing resources for free or reduced-cost colonoscopy was mailed to participants who had reported cost barriers and remained nonadherent. Rates of medically verified colonoscopy at the 15-month follow-up were compared on the basis of group assignment and within group stratification by cost barriers.
In intent-to-treat analysis, 42.7% of participants in TeleCARE and 24.1% of participants in the educational brochure group had a medically verified colonoscopy [OR, 2.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59-3.52]. Cost was identified as a barrier in both groups (TeleCARE = 62.5%; educational brochure = 57.0%). When cost was not a barrier, the TeleCARE group was almost four times as likely as the comparison to have a colonoscopy (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.85-7.24). The intervention was efficacious among those who reported cost barriers; the TeleCARE group was nearly twice as likely to have a colonoscopy (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.12-3.52).
TeleCARE increased colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers.
Remote interventions may bolster screening colonoscopy regardless of cost barriers and be more efficacious when cost barriers are absent.
我们测试了一种远程定制干预措施——远程癌症风险评估与评估(TeleCARE)与邮寄教育手册相比,在提高结直肠癌患者高危亲属结肠镜检查接受率方面的效果,并根据参与者报告的成本障碍检查了亚组差异。
结肠镜检查未达最新标准的结直肠癌患者家属作为家庭单位被随机分配到TeleCARE组(N = 232)或教育手册组(N = 249)。在9个月的随访中,向报告有成本障碍且仍未坚持的参与者邮寄了一封列出免费或低成本结肠镜检查资源的成本资源信。在15个月的随访中,根据分组情况以及按成本障碍进行的组内分层,比较了经医学验证的结肠镜检查率。
在意向性分析中,TeleCARE组42.7%的参与者和教育手册组24.1%的参与者进行了经医学验证的结肠镜检查[比值比(OR),2.37;95%置信区间(CI)1.59 - 3.52]。两组均将成本确定为一个障碍(TeleCARE组 = 62.5%;教育手册组 = 57.0%)。当成本不是障碍时,TeleCARE组进行结肠镜检查的可能性几乎是对照组的四倍(OR,3.66;95% CI,1.85 - 7.24)。该干预措施在报告有成本障碍的人群中有效;TeleCARE组进行结肠镜检查的可能性几乎是对照组的两倍(OR,1.99;95% CI,1.12 - 3.52)。
无论成本障碍如何,TeleCARE均提高了结肠镜检查率。
远程干预措施可能会提高筛查结肠镜检查率,无论成本障碍如何,并且在没有成本障碍时更有效。