Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
An official website of the United States government
Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Champion VL, Paskett ED, Stump TE, Biederman EB, Vachon E, Katz ML, Rawl SM, Baltic RD, Kettler CD, Seiber EE, Xu WY, Monahan PO. Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Network Open. 2023 Apr 3; 6(4):e2311004.
Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects. IMPORTANCE: Women living in rural areas have lower rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compared with women living in urban settings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of (1) a mailed, tailored digital video disc (DVD) intervention; (2) a DVD intervention plus telephonic patient navigation (DVD/PN); and (3) usual care with simultaneously increased adherence to any breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that was not up to date at baseline and to assess cost-effectiveness. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical trial recruited and followed up women from rural Indiana and Ohio (community based) who were not up to date on any or all recommended cancer screenings. Participants were randomly assigned between November 28, 2016, and July 1, 2019, to 1 of 3 study groups (DVD, DVD/PN, or usual care). Statistical analyses were completed between August and December 2021 and between March and September 2022. INTERVENTION: The DVD interactively assessed and provided messages for health beliefs, including risk of developing the targeted cancers and barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy for obtaining the needed screenings. Patient navigators counseled women on barriers to obtaining screenings. The intervention simultaneously supported obtaining screening for all or any tests outside of guidelines at baseline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Receipt of any or all needed cancer screenings from baseline through 12 months, including breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the randomized groups on being up to date for all and any screenings at 12 months. RESULTS: The sample included 963 women aged 50 to 74 years (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [6.3] years). The DVD group had nearly twice the odds of those in the usual care group of obtaining all needed screenings (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.43; P = .048), and the odds were nearly 6 times greater for DVD/PN vs usual care (OR, 5.69; 95% CI, 3.24-10.5; P < .001). The DVD/PN intervention (but not DVD alone) was significantly more effective than usual care (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.60-6.28; P < .001) for promoting at least 1 (ie, any) of the needed screenings at 12 months. Cost-effectiveness per woman who was up to date was $14 462 in the DVD group and $10 638 in the DVD/PN group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial of rural women who were not up to date with at least 1 of the recommended cancer screenings (breast, cervical, or colorectal), an intervention designed to simultaneously increase adherence to any or all of the 3 cancer screening tests was more effective than usual care, available at relatively modest costs, and able to be remotely delivered, demonstrating great potential for implementing an evidence-based intervention in remote areas of the midwestern US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02795104.
