Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine (대한예방의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cost Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial

  • Misra, Swati (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) ;
  • Lairson, David R. (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) ;
  • Chan, Wenyaw (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) ;
  • Chang, Yu-Chia (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) ;
  • Bartholomew, L. Kay (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) ;
  • Greisinger, Anthony (Kelsey Research Foundation) ;
  • Mcqueen, Amy (Washington University School of Medicine) ;
  • Vernon, Sally W. (School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston)
  • Received : 2011.02.19
  • Accepted : 2011.04.18
  • Published : 2011.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Screening for colorectal cancer is considered cost effective, but is underutilized in the U.S. Information on the efficiency of "tailored interventions" to promote colorectal cancer screening in primary care settings is limited. The paper reports the results of a cost effectiveness analysis that compared a survey-only control group to a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) web-based intervention (screen for life) and to a tailored interactive computer-based intervention. Methods: A randomized controlled trial of people 50 and over, was conducted to test the interventions. The sample was 1224 partcipants 50-70 years of age, recruited from Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, a large multi-specialty clinic in Houston, Texas. Screening status was obtained by medical chart review after a 12-month follow-up period. An "intention to treat" analysis and micro costing from the patient and provider perspectives were used to estimate the costs and effects. Analysis of statistical uncertainty was conducted using nonparametric bootstrapping. Results: The estimated cost of implementing the web-based intervention was $40 per person and the cost of the tailored intervention was $45 per person. The additional cost per person screened for the web-based intervention compared to no intervention was $2602 and the tailored intervention was no more effective than the web-based strategy. Conclusions: The tailored intervention was less cost-effective than the web-based intervention for colorectal cancer screening promotion. The web-based intervention was less cost-effective than previous studies of in-reach colorectal cancer screening promotion. Researchers need to continue developing and evaluating the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening.

Keywords

References

  1. National Cancer Institute. Colon and rectal cancer. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/colon-and-rectal.
  2. Seifeldin R, Hantsch JJ. The economic burden associated with colon cancer in the United States. Clin Ther 1999; 21(8): 1370-1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(99)80037-X
  3. Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, Levin B, Byers T, Rothenberger D, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001-testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin 2001; 51(1): 38-75. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.51.1.38
  4. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58(3): 130-160. https://doi.org/10.3322/CA.2007.0018
  5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspscolo.htm.
  6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Colorectal cancer screening tests. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/basic_info/screening/tests.htm.
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Healthy people 2010 targets. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/SAHA/Default/HealthyTargets.aspx.
  8. Cancer Prevention Research Center. Transtheoretical model: detailed overview of the transtheoretical model. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.uri.edu/research/cprc/TTM/detailedoverview.htm.
  9. Sequist TD, Zaslavsky AM, Marshall R, Fletcher RH, Ayanian JZ. Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(4): 364-371. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.564
  10. Chirikos TN, Christman LK, Hunter S, Roetzheim RG. Cost-effectiveness of an intervention to increase cancer screening in primary care settings. Prev Med 2004; 39(2): 230-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.021
  11. Lairson DR, DiCarlo M, Myers RE, Wolf T, Cocroft J, Sifri R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use. Cancer 2008; 112(4): 779-788. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23232
  12. Andersen MR, Urban N, Ramsey S, Briss PA. Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion. Cancer 2004; 101(5 Suppl): 1229-1238. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20511
  13. Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, McQueen A, Bettencourt JL, Greisinger A, Coan SP, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same. Ann Behav Med DOI: 10.1007/s12160-010-9258-5.
  14. Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory-and evidencebased health education programs. Health Educ Behav 1998; 25(5): 545-563. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819802500502
  15. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychol 1993; 12(5): 399-405. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.12.5.399
  16. Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Bellis JM, DiClemente CC, Rossi JS, Fava JL, et al. An expert system intervention for smoking cessation. Addict Behav 1993; 18(3): 269-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4603(93)90029-9
  17. Lairson DR, Chang YC, Bettencourt JL, Vernon SW, Greisinger A. Estimating development cost for a tailored interactive computer program to enhance colorectal cancer screening compliance. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13(5): 476-484. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M2067
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Colorectal (colon) cancer: screen for life print materials. [cited 2011 Feb 17]. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/sfl/print_materials.htm#factsheets.
  19. Andersen MR, Hager M, Su C, Urban N. Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of mammography promotion by volunteers in rural communities. Health Educ Behav 2002; 29(6): 755-770. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019802237942
  20. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O'brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  21. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling costeffectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a nonparametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6(4): 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>3.0.CO;2-W
  22. Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, Clarke P. Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12(5): 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.766
  23. Albada A, Ausems MG, Bensing JM, van Dulmen S. Tailored information about cancer risk and screening: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 77(2): 155-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.03.005
  24. Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Rosenthal M, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2007; 110(9): 2083-2091. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23022
  25. Ling BS, Schoen RE, Trauth JM, Wahed AS, Eury T, Simak DM, et al. Physicians encouraging colorectal screening: a randomized controlled trial of enhanced office and patient management on compliance with colorectal cancer screening. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(1): 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.519
  26. Sequist TD, Franz C, Ayanian JZ. Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening. Med Care 2010; 48(6): 553-557. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181dbd8eb
  27. Godin G, Sheeran P, Conner M, Germain M. Asking questions changes behavior: mere measurement effects on frequency of blood donation. Health Psychol 2008; 27(2): 179-184 https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.179
  28. Sarfaty M, Wender R. How to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57(6): 354-366. https://doi.org/10.3322/CA.57.6.354
  29. McQueen A, Bartholomew LK, Greisinger AJ, Medina GG, Hawley ST, Haidet P, et al. Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med 2009; 24(11): 1228-1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1108-4
  30. Briggs AH, O'Brien BJ. The death of cost-minimization analysis? Health Econ 2001; 10(2): 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.584

Cited by

  1. Colorectal Cancer in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Need for Screening vol.13, pp.8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2012.13.8.3809
  2. A lesson in business: cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel financial incentive intervention for increasing physical activity in the workplace vol.13, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-953
  3. Cost‐effectiveness of a standard intervention versus a navigated intervention on colorectal cancer screening use in primary care vol.120, pp.7, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28535
  4. Public Awareness of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Interventions for Increasing Screening Uptake vol.2014, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/425787
  5. Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review vol.64, pp.7, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308081
  6. The cost of implementing two small media interventions to promote HPV vaccination vol.99, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.03.002
  7. Colorectal cancer screening interventions in 2 health care systems serving disadvantaged populations: Screening uptake and cost‐effectiveness vol.124, pp.21, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31691
  8. Economic Evaluation of Tailored Web versus Tailored Telephone-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening among Women vol.13, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-19-0376
  9. Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis vol.15, pp.9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238354