𝔖 Bobbio Scriptorium
✦   LIBER   ✦

Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use

✍ Scribed by David R. Lairson; Melissa DiCarlo; Ronald E. Myers; Thomas Wolf; James Cocroft; Randa Sifri; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W. Vernon; Richard Wender


Publisher
John Wiley and Sons
Year
2008
Tongue
English
Weight
109 KB
Volume
112
Category
Article
ISSN
0008-543X

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

✦ Synopsis


Abstract

BACKGROUND.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost‐effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost‐effectiveness of targeted and tailored behavioral interventions to increase CRC screening use by conducting an economic analysis associated with a randomized trial among patients in a large, racially and ethnically diverse, urban family practice in Philadelphia.

METHODS.

The incremental costs per unit increase were measured in individuals who were screened during the 24 months after intervention. Percent increase in screening was adjusted for baseline differences in the study groups. Each intervention arm received a targeted screening invitation letter, stool blood test (SBT) cards, informational booklet, and reminder letter. Tailored interventions incrementally added tailored messages and reminder telephone calls.

RESULTS.

Program costs of the targeted intervention were $42 per participant. Additional costs of adding tailored print materials and of delivering a reminder telephone call were $150 and $200 per participant, respectively. The cost per additional individual screened was $319 when comparing the no intervention group with the targeted intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS.

The targeted intervention was more effective and less costly than the tailored intervention. Although tailoring plus reminder telephone call was the most effective strategy, it was very costly per additional individual screened. Mailed SBT cards significantly boosted CRC screening use. However, going beyond the targeted intervention to include tailoring or tailoring plus reminder calls in the manner used in this study did not appear to be an economically attractive strategy. Cancer 2008. Β© 2007 American Cancer Society.


πŸ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


A randomized controlled trial of the imp
✍ Ronald E. Myers; Randa Sifri; Terry Hyslop; Michael Rosenthal; Sally W. Vernon; πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2007 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 182 KB πŸ‘ 1 views

## Abstract ## BACKGROUND. Colorectal cancer screening is underutilized. The objective of the current study was to determine whether targeted and tailored interventions can increase screening use. ## METHODS. A total of 1546 primary care practice patients completed a baseline telephone survey an

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two strat
✍ CΓ©lia Berchi; VΓ©ronique Bouvier; Jean-Marie RΓ©aud; Guy Launoy πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2004 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 160 KB πŸ‘ 1 views

## Abstract The implementation of colorectal cancer mass screening is a high public health priority in France, as in most other industrialised countries. Despite evidences that screening using guaiac fecal occult blood test may reduce colorectal cancer mortality, no European country has organised w

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer
✍ Perry J. Pickhardt; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi; Angelo Zullo; David H. Kim; Ser πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2007 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 253 KB πŸ‘ 1 views

## Abstract ## BACKGROUND Prior cost‐effectiveness models analyzing computed tomography colonography (CTC) screening have assumed that patients with diminutive lesions (≀5 mm) will be referred to optical colonoscopy (OC) for polypectomy. However, consensus guidelines for CTC recommend reporting on

Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer
✍ Joseph Romagnuolo πŸ“‚ Article πŸ“… 2007 πŸ› John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English βš– 38 KB πŸ‘ 1 views

W e were disappointed that many critical assumptions in the ar- ticle regarding the cost-effectiveness of computed tomography colonography (CTC) by Pickhardt et al. 1 are not in keeping with the literature, leading to incorrect conclusions. First, CTC accuracy for ''polyps'' is used, whereas the au