Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2005 Dec;20(12):1097-101.
doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0245.x.

Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Can we change physician behavior?

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Promoting use of colorectal cancer screening tests. Can we change physician behavior?

Judith M E Walsh et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized despite evidence that screening reduces mortality.

Objective: To assess the effect of an intervention targeting physicians and their patients on rates of CRC screening.

Design: A randomized clinical trial of community physicians and their patients.

Participants: Ninety-four community primary care physicians randomly assigned to an intervention consisting of academic detailing and direct mailings to patients or a control group. Patients aged 50 to 79 years in the intervention group physicians received a letter from their physician, a brochure on CRC screening, and a packet of fecal occult blood test (FOBT) cards.

Measurements: After 1 year we measured receipt of the following: (1) FOBT in the past 2 years, (2) flexible sigmoidoscopy (SIG) or colonoscopy (COL) in the previous 5 years, and (3) any CRC screening. We report the percent change from baseline in both groups.

Results: 9,652 patients were enrolled for 2 years, and 3,732 patients were enrolled for 5 years. There was no increase in any CRC screening that occurred in the intervention group for patients enrolled for 2 years (12.7 increase vs 12.5%, P=.51). Similar results were seen for any CRC screening among patients enrolled for 5 years (9.7% increase vs 8.6%, P=.45). The only outcome on which the intervention had an effect was on patient rates of screening SIG (7.4% increase vs 4.4%, P<.01).

Conclusion: With the exception of an increase in rates of SIG in the intervention group, the intervention had no effect on rates of CRC screening. Future interventions should assess innovative approaches to increase rates of CRC screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, Jorgensen O, Sondergaard O. Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet. 1996;348:1467–71. - PubMed
    1. Hardcastle J, Chamberlain J, Robinson M. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–7. - PubMed
    1. Mandel J, Bond J, Church T. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1365–71. - PubMed
    1. Coffield AB, Maciosek MV, McGinnis JM. Priorities among recommended clinical preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:1–9. - PubMed
    1. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:129–31. - PubMed

Publication types