Advertisement

Nonparticipation in a Population-Based Trial to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening

      Background

      Many trials have tested different strategies to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Few describe whether participants are representative of the population from which they are recruited.

      Purpose

      To determine risk factors related to nonparticipation among patients enrolled in an integrated health plan and not up to date for CRC testing, in a trial to increase screening rates.

      Methods

      Between July 2008 and October 2009, a total of 15,000 adults aged 50–74 years from 21 clinics in Washington State who were due for CRC screening were contacted. Nonparticipants were defined as English-speaking patients who did not engage in the call or refused participation while still potentially eligible. Log-binomial regression models were used to estimate the relative risk of nonparticipation. Analyses were completed between October 2010 and June 2011.

      Results

      Patients who were nonwhite, had less education, used tobacco, had less continuity of care, and had lower rates of preventive care and cancer screening were more likely to be nonparticipants. Patients reporting never having received any type of CRC testing or screening were also more likely not to participate (62% of nonparticipants vs 46% of participants; adjusted RR=1.58, 95% CI=1.47, 1.70). Reasons for refusal included costs, risks of procedures, and not wanting their medical records reviewed.

      Conclusions

      Patients eligible for but not participating in the trial were more likely to be from minority socioeconomic and racial groups and had behaviors that can negatively affect cancer outcomes. Additional efforts are needed to recruit patients who need CRC screening the most.

      Trial registration

      This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00697047.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Hewitson P.
        • Glasziou P.
        • Irwig L.
        • Towler B.
        • Watson E.
        Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (CD001216)
        • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
        Screening for colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2008
        • CDC
        Vital signs: breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74 years—U.S., 2008.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010; 59: 813-816
        • CDC
        Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality—U.S., 2002–2010.
        MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 460: 884-889
        • Holden D.J.
        • Harris R.
        • Porterfield D.S.
        • et al.
        Enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2010 (Report No.: 10-E002)
        • Wendler D.
        • Kington R.
        • Madans J.
        • et al.
        Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research?.
        PLoS Med. 2006; 3: e19
        • Ford J.G.
        • Howerton M.W.
        • Lai G.Y.
        • et al.
        Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: a systematic review.
        Cancer. 2008; 112: 228-242
        • Rabin B.A.
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Kerner J.F.
        • Klump M.P.
        • Brownson R.C.
        Dissemination and implementation research on community-based cancer prevention: a systematic review.
        Am J Prev Med. 2010; 38: 443-456
        • Weiss N.S.
        • Koepsell T.D.
        • Psaty B.M.
        Generalizability of the results of randomized trials.
        Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 133-135
        • Green B.B.
        • Wang C.Y.
        • Horner K.
        • et al.
        Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants.
        Contemp Clin Trials. 2010; 31: 589-603
        • Ridpath J.R.
        • Wiese C.J.
        • Greene S.M.
        Looking at research consent forms through a participant-centered lens: the PRISM readability toolkit.
        Am J Health Promot. 2009; 23: 371-375
        • Starfield B.
        • Weiner J.
        • Mumford L.
        • Steinwachs D.
        Ambulatory care groups: a categorization of diagnoses for research and management.
        Health Serv Res. 1991; 26: 53-74
        • Weiner J.P.
        • Starfield B.H.
        • Steinwachs D.M.
        • Mumford L.M.
        Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case-mix.
        Med Care. 1991; 29: 452-472
        • Breslau N.
        • Reeb K.G.
        Continuity of care in a university-based practice.
        J Med Educ. 1975; 50: 965-969
        • Elliott M.N.
        • Fremont A.
        • Morrison P.A.
        • Pantoja P.
        • Lurie N.
        A new method for estimating race/ethnicity and associated disparities where administrative records lack self-reported race/ethnicity.
        Health Serv Res. 2008 May 12; ([Epub ahead of print])
        • DiClemente C.
        • Prochaska J.
        Toward a comprehensive, transtheoretical model of change.
        in: Miller W.R. Heather N. Treating addictive behaviors. Springer, New York1998: 3-24
        • Vernon S.W.
        • Bartholomew L.K.
        • McQueen A.
        • et al.
        A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same.
        Ann Behav Med. 2011; 41: 284-299
        • McNutt L.A.
        • Wu C.
        • Xue X.
        • Hafner J.P.
        Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157: 940-943
        • Beebe T.J.
        • Talley N.J.
        • Camilleri M.
        • Jenkins S.M.
        • Anderson K.J.
        • Locke 3rd, G.R.
        The HIPAA authorization form and effects on survey response rates, nonresponse bias, and data quality: a randomized community study.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: 959-965
        • Lai G.Y.
        • Gary T.L.
        • Tilburt J.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of strategies to recruit underrepresented populations into cancer clinical trials.
        Clin Trials. 2006; 3: 133-141
        • Fan E.
        • Laupacis A.
        • Pronovost P.J.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        • Needham D.M.
        How to use an article about quality improvement.
        JAMA. 2010; 304: 2279-2287
        • Handley M.A.
        • Schillinger D.
        • Shiboski S.
        Quasi-experimental designs in practice-based research settings: design and implementation considerations.
        J Am Board Fam Med. 2011; 24: 589-596
        • Lewis C.
        • Pignone M.
        • Schild L.A.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of a patient- and practice-level colorectal cancer screening intervention in health plan members: design and baseline findings of the CHOICE trial.
        Cancer. 2010; 116: 1664-1673
        • Kunz R.
        • Vist G.
        • Oxman A.D.
        Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (MR000012)
        • Hoffman R.M.
        • Steel S.R.
        • Yee E.F.
        • et al.
        A system-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake.
        Am J Manag Care. 2011; 17: 49-55
        • del Junco D.J.
        • Vernon S.W.
        • Coan S.P.
        • et al.
        Promoting regular mammography screening, I.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 333-346
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Klesges L.M.
        • Dzewaltowski D.A.
        • Estabrooks P.A.
        • Vogt T.M.
        Evaluating the impact of health promotion programs: using the RE-AIM framework to form summary measures for decision making involving complex issues.
        Health Educ Res. 2006; 21: 688-694
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Strycker L.A.
        • Kurz D.
        • et al.
        Recruitment for an internet-based diabetes self-management program: scientific and ethical implications.
        Ann Behav Med. 2010; 40: 40-48
        • Kessler R.
        • Glasgow R.E.
        A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice: dramatic change is needed.
        Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 637-644
        • Glasgow R.E.
        • Nelson C.C.
        • Strycker L.A.
        • King D.K.
        Using RE-AIM metrics to evaluate diabetes self-management support interventions.
        Am J Prev Med. 2006; 30: 67-73
        • National Cancer Institute
        RE-AIM: proposal for impact calculators.
        • Lamerato L.E.
        • Marcus P.M.
        • Jacobsen G.
        • Johnson C.C.
        Recruitment in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial: the first phase of recruitment at Henry Ford Health System.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17: 827-833