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
. 2012 Nov;18(11):691-9.

Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: economic analysis

Affiliations

Automated telephone calls to enhance colorectal cancer screening: economic analysis

David H Smith et al. Am J Manag Care. 2012 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of an automated telephone intervention for colorectal cancer screening from a managed care perspective, using data from a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Methods: Intervention patients received calls for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) screening. We searched patients' electronic medical records for any screening (defined as FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, double-contrast barium enema, or colonoscopy) during follow-up. Intervention costs included project implementation and management, telephone calls, patient identification, and tracking. Screening costs included FOBT (kits, mailing, and processing) and any completed screening tests during follow-up. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the cost per additional screen.

Results: At 6 months, average costs for intervention and control patients were $37 (25% screened) and $34 (19% screened), respectively. The ICER at 6 months was $42 per additional screen, less than half what other studies have reported. Cost-effectiveness probability was 0.49, 0.84, and 0.99 for willingness-to-pay thresholds of $40, $100, and $200, respectively. Similar results were seen at 9 months. A greater increase in FOBT testing was seen for patients aged >70 years (45/100 intervention, 33/100 control) compared with younger patients (25/100 intervention, 21/100 control). The intervention was dominant for patients aged >70 years and was $73 per additional screen for younger patients. It increased screening rates by about 6% and costs by $3 per patient.

Conclusions: At willingness to pay of $100 or more per additional screening test, an automated telephone reminder intervention can be an optimal use of resources.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design and population selection* (used with permission)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Type and Timing of Calls to Intervention Group

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK, editors. World Wide Web. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD: 2010. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/ based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
    1. Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Knudsen AB, Brenner H. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening - An overview. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology. 2010;24:439–449. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sun Hee Rim, Joseph Djenaba A, Steele Brooke, Thompson Trevor D, Seeff Laura C. Colorectal Cancer Screening --- United States, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:42–46. - PubMed
    1. Lairson DR, DiCarlo M, Myers RE, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening use. Cancer. 2008;112:779–788. - PubMed
    1. Sequist TD, Franz C, Ayanian JZ. Cost-effectiveness of patient mailings to promote colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 2010;48:553–557. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types