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
. 2018 Apr 17;168(8):550-557.
doi: 10.7326/M17-2315. Epub 2018 Mar 13.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

David P Miller Jr  1 , Nancy Denizard-Thompson  1 , Kathryn E Weaver  1 , L Doug Case  1 , Jennifer L Troyer  2 , John G Spangler  1 , Donna Lawler  1 , Michael P Pignone  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

David P Miller Jr et al. Ann Intern Med. .

Abstract

Background: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet more than one third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened.

Objective: To examine the effect of a digital health intervention, Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC), on rates of CRC screening.

Design: Randomized clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02088333).

Setting: 6 community-based primary care practices.

Participants: 450 patients (223 in the mPATH-CRC group and 227 in usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening.

Intervention: An iPad application that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients.

Measurements: The primary outcome was chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests. All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization.

Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; 37% of participants had limited health literacy, and 53% had annual incomes less than $20 000. Screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6 to 4.0]). Compared with usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) "self-ordered" a test via the program.

Limitation: Participants were English speakers in a single health care system.

Conclusion: A digital health intervention that allows patients to self-order tests can increase CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions in clinical care.

Primary funding source: National Cancer Institute.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flowchart
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Inadomi JM. Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):149–56. - PubMed
    1. Ladabaum U, Mannalithara A. Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2016 Sep;151(3):427–439.e6. - PubMed
    1. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter C, Webber EM, O’Connor E, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016. Report No: 14-05203-EF-1. - PubMed
    1. Patel SS, Kilgore ML. Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies. Cancer Control J Moffitt Cancer Cent. 2015 Apr;22(2):248–58. - PubMed
    1. Sharaf RN, Ladabaum U. Comparative Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Colonoscopy vs. Sigmoidoscopy and Alternative Strategies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jan;108(1):120–32. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data