Repeat Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Community Clinics: A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate Outreach Strategies to Sustain Screening. Issue 3 (16th September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Davis, Terry C.; Rademaker, Alfred; Morris, James; Ferguson, Laurie Anne; Wiltz, Gary; Arnold, Connie L.
• Is Part Of: Journal of rural health. Volume 36:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 307
• Page End: 315
• Publication Date: 2019-09-16
• Subjects: fecal immunochemical test -- health literacy -- repeat colorectal cancer screening -- rural community clinics -- telephone follow‐up strategies; Rural health -- Periodicals; Rural health -- United States -- Periodicals; Medicine, Rural -- Periodicals; Medicine, Rural -- United States -- Periodicals; 362.104257
• DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12399
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0890-765X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The majority of colorectal cancer (CRC) research using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) has studied short‐term screening results in predominantly urban areas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 outreach strategies embedded in a health literacy intervention on repeat CRC screening in rural community clinics. Methods: A 2‐arm randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 rural clinics in Louisiana. During a regularly scheduled clinic visit, participants ages 50–75 received a FIT kit and brief educational intervention. Participants were randomized to receive an automated call or a personal call by a prevention counselor after 4 weeks and 8 weeks if FIT kits were not returned. In year 2, materials were mailed, and follow‐up calls were conducted as in year 1. The primary outcome was repeat FIT—the return of the FIT kit in both years. Participants: Of 568 eligible participants, 55% were female, 67% were African American, and 39% had low health literacy. Findings: Repeat FIT rates were 36.5% for those receiving the automated call and 33.6% for those receiving a personal call ( P = .30). No annual FITs were returned in 30% of participants, while only 1 FIT was returned by 35% of participants (31% only year 1 and 4% only year 2). Conclusion: Sustaining CRC screening with FIT is challenging in rural clinics. A lower cost automated call was just as effective as the personal call in promoting repeat annual screening. However, more intensive strategies are needed to improve long‐term FIT screening among rural participants.