Follow‐up approaches to a health literacy intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in rural community clinics: A randomized controlled trial

Connie L. Arnold,Alfred W. Rademaker,James D. Morris,Laurie Anne Ferguson,Gary Wiltz,Terry C. Davis
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32398
IF: 6.9209
2019-07-29
Cancer
Abstract:<h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Background</h3><p>Significant disparities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among those of low socioeconomic status, with fewer years of education, lacking health insurance, or living in rural areas.</p><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Methods</h3><p>A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 2 follow‐up approaches to a health literacy intervention to improve CRC screening: automated telephone call or personal call. Patients aged 50 to 75 years residing in 4 rural community clinics in Louisiana were given a structured interview that assessed demographic, health literacy and CRC screening barriers, knowledge, and attitudes. All were given health literacy–informed CRC education, a patient‐friendly CRC screening pamphlet, simplified fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions, and a FIT kit, and a "teach‐back" method was used to confirm understanding. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 telephone follow‐up arms. If they did not mail their FIT kit within 4 weeks, they received a reminder call and were called again at 8 weeks if the test still was not received.</p><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Results</h3><p>A total of 620 patients were enrolled. Approximately 55% were female, 66% were African American, and 40% had limited literacy. The overall FIT completion rate was 68%: 69.2% in the automated telephone call arm and 67% in the personal call arm. Greater than one‐half of the patients (range, 58%‐60%) returned the FIT kit without receiving a telephone call. There was no difference noted with regard to the effectiveness of the follow‐up calls; each increased the return rate by 9%.</p><h3 class="article-section__sub-title section1"> Conclusions</h3><p>Providing FIT kits and literacy‐appropriate education at regularly scheduled clinic visits with a follow‐up telephone call when needed was found to increase CRC screening among low‐income, rural patients. The lower cost automated call was just as effective as the personal call.</p>
oncology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?