Suppr超能文献

邮寄外展促进结直肠癌筛查中加入经济激励措施的效果:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Addition of Financial Incentives to Mailed Outreach for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

机构信息

Gastroenterology Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Moores Cancer Center, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla.

出版信息

JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Aug 2;4(8):e2122581. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22581.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Although screening decreases incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Health-promoting financial incentives may increase uptake of cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of CRC screening.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 31, 2020. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms were used to identify published studies on the topic. The search strategy identified 835 studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were selected that involved adults older than 50 years who were eligible for CRC screening, who received either various forms of financial incentives along with mailed outreach or no financial incentives but mailed outreach and reminders alone, and who reported screening completion by using recommended tests at different time points. Observational or nonrandomized studies and a few RCTs were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Data were abstracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analysis and metaregression, and quality of evidence was appraised.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months of receiving the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives). Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (≤$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Adding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted.

摘要

重要性

虽然筛查可以降低结直肠癌(CRC)的发病率和死亡率,但筛查率仍然较低。促进健康的经济激励措施可能会增加癌症筛查的参与度。

目的

评估在增加结直肠癌筛查中加入经济激励措施与相对和绝对收益的关系。

数据来源

从建立到 2020 年 7 月 31 日,通过 PubMed、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库和 Web of Science 搜索了已发表的研究。使用关键词和医学主题词来确定关于该主题的已发表研究。搜索策略确定了 835 项研究。

研究选择

选择了涉及年龄超过 50 岁且有资格进行 CRC 筛查的成年人的随机临床试验(RCT),他们要么接受各种形式的经济激励措施以及邮件外展服务,要么仅接受邮件外展服务和提醒,并且在不同时间点通过推荐的测试报告了筛查完成情况。排除了观察性或非随机研究和少数 RCT。

数据提取和综合

本综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行报告。数据由两名独立评审员摘录和评估风险偏差。进行了随机效应荟萃分析,通过亚组分析和荟萃回归检查了异质性,并评估了证据质量。

主要结果和测量

主要结果是在接受干预后 12 个月内完成 CRC 筛查。

结果

共纳入了 8 项在美国进行的 RCT,发表时间为 2014 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 12 月 31 日。这些试验共涉及 110644 名参与者,其中 53444 名(48.3%)被随机分配到干预组(接受经济激励),57200 名(51.7%)被随机分配到对照组(未接受经济激励)。参与者主要为男性,其中有 59113 名男性(53.4%)。低质量证据(因风险偏差和异质性而降级)表明,与不给予经济激励相比,给予经济激励可能会带来较小的 CRC 筛查增加的益处(优势比 [OR],1.25;95%CI,1.05-1.49)。在外展邮件的估计 CRC 筛查完成率为 30%的情况下,给予经济激励可能会将这一比例提高到 33.5%(95%CI,30.8%-36.2%)。在荟萃回归中,随着低收入和/或少数族裔参与者比例的增加,获益的幅度减小。未观察到经济干预类型(固定金额:OR,1.26 [95%CI,1.05-1.52]与彩票:OR,1.06 [95%CI,0.80-1.40];P=0.32)、激励金额(≤$5:OR,1.09 [95%CI,1.01-1.18]与>$5:OR,1.25 [95%CI,1.02-1.54];P=0.22)或筛查方式(粪便检测:OR,1.14 [95%CI,0.92-1.41]与结肠镜检查:OR,1.63 [95%CI,1.01-2.64];P=0.18)之间的显著差异。

结论和相关性

给予经济激励似乎与增加 CRC 筛查参与度的小益处相关,在健康状况不良的人群中,社会决定因素较差的人群可能会有边际收益。需要采用替代方法来提高 CRC 筛查的参与度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0acd/8387849/36a0115fe140/jamanetwopen-e2122581-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验