Increasing Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates by Implementing Effective "Reminder to Complete Kit" Communication With Participants: A Quality Improvement Study.

colon cancer prevention colorectal cancer disease surveillance and notification early screening quality improvement research

Journal

Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2022
Historique:
accepted: 20 05 2022
entrez: 24 6 2022
pubmed: 25 6 2022
medline: 25 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Background The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States is increasing. It remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States for men and women combined, mainly due to underutilization of screening methods. The American Cancer Society now recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to determine if reminder methods, such as telephone or letter reminders, increased the return rate of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for CRC screening. Methodology At public outreach events and daily clinics in the West Texas Panhandle area, participants in the GET FIT program were provided with FIT kits after completing the education on CRC. Participants who fit the inclusion criteria and had received a FIT kit from the program were included. They were instructed on how to perform the test and mail it back. Participants who did not return the completed kits within two weeks were reminded either through (1) a reminder letter, (2) telephone, or (3) a combination of letter reminder and telephone call every two weeks (±three days) for 60 days or five attempts to contact. We de-identified and analyzed the FIT kit return data from April-September 2019 before analyzing these reminder methods. We then calculated the change in return rates from October 2019 to March 2020. Our goal was to increase the FIT return rates by 25% compared to the baseline return rate. Results The pre-intervention return rate of kits for April-September 2019 was 61.52%, and the post-intervention return rate for October 2019-March 2020 was 71.85%. This rate was equal to an approximately 16.79% increase in return rates that was statistically significant (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference in the method of reminder between the two groups, but no significant differences in gender and race/ethnicity between the two groups. There was a significant difference in return rates between race/ethnicities in the October-March cohort with black and Hispanic participants having the highest return rates of 82.3% and 77.25%, respectively. Conclusions FIT remains one of the primary options for CRC screening. Due to its lower cost and noninvasiveness, FIT was offered to patients at average risk. We demonstrated an increase in return rates, although we did not meet our target return rate goal for this project. This study was limited due to a gradual increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and a subsequent shift and conversation of ongoing research into COVID-19.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35746986
doi: 10.7759/cureus.25169
pmc: PMC9206862
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e25169

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022, Prakash et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Dec 1;178(12):1645-1658
pubmed: 30326005
Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Nov;56(11):3137-42
pubmed: 21688010
Cancer. 2007 Nov 1;110(9):2083-91
pubmed: 17893869
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281
pubmed: 29846947
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;177(8):1110-1118
pubmed: 28628706
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jun;17(7):1332-1340.e3
pubmed: 30391435
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Sep 1;178(9):1174-1181
pubmed: 30083752
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Apr;19(4):633-645
pubmed: 31887438
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Oct 14;173(18):1725-32
pubmed: 23921906
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Dec 1;178(12):1658-1660
pubmed: 30326022
Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 1;116(3):458-479
pubmed: 33657038
Am J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec;37(6):555-60
pubmed: 23466582
J Rural Health. 2021 Jun;37(3):576-584
pubmed: 33078439
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Apr 17;168(8):550-557
pubmed: 29532054
JAMA. 2016 Jun 21;315(23):2564-2575
pubmed: 27304597
J Am Board Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;25(1):73-82
pubmed: 22218627
Cancer. 2016 Feb 1;122(3):456-63
pubmed: 26535565

Auteurs

Sameer Prakash (S)

Internal Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, USA.
Internal Medicine, Memorial Hermann The Woodlands Hospital, Spring, USA.

Nooraldin Merza (N)

Internal Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, USA.

Omid Hosseini (O)

School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA.

Haven Ward (H)

School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, USA.

Tarek Mansi (T)

Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Michelle Balducci (M)

General and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Deborah Trammell (D)

General and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Brenda Hernandez (B)

General and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Izi Obokhare (I)

General and Colorectal Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA.

Classifications MeSH