A Sustainable Approach to Increasing Cancer Screening (CATCH)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01395459|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : July 15, 2011
Last Update Posted : April 8, 2015
A Coordinated Approach to Cancer and Health (CATCH), was designed to compare the efficacy of two intervention arms (described below) intended to increase breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening rates among patients served by community health centers. A central focus of CATCH is to evaluate sustainable strategies for maximizing cancer screening rates among populations facing significant cancer disparities.
CATCH was conducted in partnership with the large health clinic in Massachusetts, which serves a largely Hispanic low income population. Focusing on the use of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) telephone technology system, the study is examining the extent to which the IVR, when developed in a culturally sensitive and appropriate manner (focus groups will be conducted to inform the intervention), can improve breast, cervical and colon cancer screening rates compared to a control group. Furthermore, we plan to determine if pairing IVR with telephone calls from a prevention care coordinator (PCC) will result in higher screening rates (when compared to the IVR only group). We will determine the cost-effectiveness of IVR alone vs. IVR + PCC.
We conducted a substudy of the parent study, looking at a comparison of return rates of two colorectal cancer screening home test kits: Fecal Occult Bood Tests (gFOBTs) and Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FITs). As well we surveyed people who pick up one of these two types of tests to assess barriers and facilitators of returning the completed kit to the health center for assessment.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Colorectal Cancer Breast Cancer Cervical Cancer||Behavioral: IVR only Behavioral: IVR+PCC||Not Applicable|
For the substudy, the study objective was to:
Determine if there is a difference in completion of a home blood stool test kit by type of home test being employed Fecal Occult Blood Test (gFOBT) vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT), and to determine predictors of test completion.
All patients who picked up a home blood stool test kit during the 6-12 month study recruitment time period were randomized to receive either a gFOBT or FIT kit. Randomization occurred by the month. Medical assistants (MAs) handed out the kits. Participants who picked up a kit (either gFOBT or FIT) were given a study information card that briefly described the study and had a study opt out phone number on it. If patients did not call and opt out, the card let the patient know that he/she would be contacted via telephone to complete a brief survey, for which they were given a small incentive upon completion.
A bilingual member of the study staff telephoned individuals, who had not opted out, who picked up a home blood stool test kit during the study period. Four to six weeks post kit pickup, staff determined if the patient had returned a completed test to the clinic (yes vs. no) by examining the electronic medical record. This information- whether a patient had/had not returned a completed test was used to tailor some questions asked on the survey. Study staff obtained verbal informed consent before survey administration. Participants who cited that time was a burden stopping them from starting the survey were offered an abbreviated version of the survey.
This study was limited to age eligible patients who picked up a home colon cancer screening kit.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Actual Enrollment :||13675 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Single Group Assignment|
|Masking:||None (Open Label)|
|Official Title:||A Sustainable Approach to Increasing Cancer Screening|
|Study Start Date :||September 2008|
|Actual Primary Completion Date :||March 2011|
|Actual Study Completion Date :||October 2013|
No Intervention: control
Care as usual is given.
Experimental: IVR only
The participants in this study arm receive calls from an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) call system, to remind them that they are in need of breast, cervical and colon cancer screening, as applicable.
Behavioral: IVR only
As noted, patients in this arm receive consistent, but spaced out calls generated by an interactive voice response system reminding them of breast, cervical and colon cancer screenings needed, as applicable.
The participants in this study arm receive calls from an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) call system, to remind them that they are in need of breast, cervical and colon cancer screening, as applicable. Furthermore, if remained unscreened, these participants receive person to person follow up telephone calls from a prevention care coordinator (PCC) to address barriers.
Interactive voice response calls followed up by prevention care coordinator calls for those who do not respond to IVR
- Change in population level cancer screening level at the health clinics involved. [ Time Frame: year 3 of the study ]The primary outcome of interest is improvement of population-level screening and individual outcomes for 3 cancers (breast, cervical, and colorectal)of patients reached during the intervention.
- For the substudy: return rate of gFOBT kits vs. FITs [ Time Frame: starting 4-6 weeks post pick up ]We are looking at return rates of 2 home colorectal cancer screening tests (gFOBT vs. FIT). We are contacting all people who picked up a kit to assess facilitators and barriers to return.
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT01395459
|United States, Massachusetts|
|Greater Lawrence Family Health Center (GLFHC)|
|Lawrence, Massachusetts, United States, 01841|
|Principal Investigator:||Karen M Emmons, PhD||Dana-Farber Cancer Institution|