| Title |
Effect of Reminding Patients to Complete Fecal Immunochemical Testing: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Automated and Live Approaches
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-017-4184-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gloria D. Coronado, Jennifer S. Rivelli, Morgan J. Fuoco, William M. Vollmer, Amanda F. Petrik, Erin Keast, Sara Barker, Emily Topalanchik, Ricardo Jimenez |
| Abstract |
The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends multi-component interventions, including patient reminders, to improve uptake of colorectal cancer screening. We sought to compare the effectiveness of different forms of reminders for a direct-mail fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. Patient-randomized controlled trial. 2772 adults aged 50-75, not up to date with colorectal cancer screening recommendations, with a clinic visit in the previous year at any of four participating health center clinics. Participants were mailed an introductory letter and FIT. Those who did not complete their FIT within 3 weeks were randomized to receive (1) a reminder letter, (2) two automated phone calls, (3) two text messages, (4) a live phone call, (5) a reminder letter and a live phone call, (6) two automated phone calls and a live phone call, or (7) two text messages and a live phone call. Patients with a patient portal account were sent two email reminders, but were not randomized. FIT return rates for each group, 6 months following randomization. A total of 255 (10%) participants returned their FIT within 3 weeks of the mailing. Among randomized participants (n = 2010), an additional 25.5% returned their FITs after reminders were delivered (estimated overall return rate = 32.7%). In intention-to-treat analysis, compared to the group allocated to receive a reminder letter, return rates were higher for the group assigned to receive the live phone call (OR = 1.51 [1.03-2.21]) and lower for the group assigned to receive text messages (OR = 0.66 [0.43-0.99]). Reminder effectiveness differed by language preference. Our data suggest that FIT reminders that included a live call were more effective than reminders that relied solely on written communication (a text message or letter). ClinicalTrials.gov/ctc2/show/NCT01742065 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 19% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 418. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2017.
All research outputs
#67,886
of 25,014,758 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#73
of 8,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,432
of 329,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,014,758 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,999 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.