Addition of Financial Incentives to Mailed Outreach for Promoting Colorectal Cancer Screening A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:15
作者
Facciorusso, Antonio [1 ]
Demb, Joshua [2 ]
Mohan, Babu P. [3 ]
Gupta, Samir [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Singh, Siddharth [5 ]
机构
[1] Osped Riuniti Foggia, Gastroenterol Unit, Foggia, Italy
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Moores Canc Ctr, La Jolla, CA 92093 USA
[3] Univ Utah, Sch Med, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[4] Vet Affairs San Diego Healthcare Syst, Gastroenterol Sect, San Diego, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif San Diego, Div Gastroenterol, 9452 Med Ctr Dr,ACTRI 1W501, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
TASK-FORCE; INTERVENTIONS; PREVENTION; QUALITY; TESTS; BIAS;
D O I
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22581
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
IMPORTANCE Although screening decreases incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates are low. Health-promoting financial incentives may increase uptake of cancer screening. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of CRC screening. DATA SOURCES PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 31, 2020. Keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms were used to identify published studies on the topic. The search strategy identified 835 studies. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were selected that involved adults older than 50 years who were eligible for CRC screening, who received either various forms of financial incentives along with mailed outreach or no financial incentives but mailed outreach and reminders alone, and who reported screening completion by using recommended tests at different time points. Observational or nonrandomized studies and a few RCTs were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS The review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). Data were abstracted and risk of bias was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, heterogeneity was examined through subgroup analysis and metaregression, and quality of evidence was appraised. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months of receiving the intervention. RESULTS A total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives). Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (<=$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Adding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted. Question Does adding financial incentives to mailed outreach and reminders increase the rate of colorectal cancer screening? Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials with 110 644 participants, the addition of financial incentives to promotion interventions appeared to be associated with a modest benefit of increasing colorectal cancer screening completion compared with using no financial incentives. However, no clear benefit was observed in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Meaning Monetary incentives may not substantially increase colorectal cancer screening rates in populations with a traditionally low rate of screening completion. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates whether use of monetary incentives encourage adults to undergo colorectal cancer screening.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 33 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2017, GASTROENTEROLOGY, DOI DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013
[2]   Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head [J].
Berlin, JA ;
Santanna, J ;
Schmid, CH ;
Szczech, LA ;
Feldman, HI .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2002, 21 (03) :371-387
[3]   Screening for Colorectal Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement [J].
Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten ;
Grossman, David C. ;
Curry, Susan J. ;
Davidson, Karina W. ;
Epling, John W., Jr. ;
Garcia, Francisco A. R. ;
Gillman, Matthew W. ;
Harper, Diane M. ;
Kemper, Alex R. ;
Krist, Alex H. ;
Kurth, Ann E. ;
Landefeld, C. Seth ;
Mangione, Carol M. ;
Owens, Douglas K. ;
Phillips, William R. ;
Phipps, Maureen G. ;
Pignone, Michael P. ;
Siu, Albert L. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 315 (23) :2564-2575
[4]   Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients [J].
Dacus, Heather L. M. ;
Wagner, Victoria L. ;
Collins, Elise A. ;
Matson, Jacqueline M. ;
Gates, Margaret ;
Hoover, Sonja ;
Tangka, Florence K. L. ;
Larkins, Teri ;
Subramanian, Sujha .
CANCER, 2018, 124 (21) :4145-4153
[5]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[6]   Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis [J].
Dougherty, Michael K. ;
Brenner, Alison T. ;
Crockett, Seth D. ;
Gupta, Shivani ;
Wheeler, Stephanie B. ;
Coker-Schwimmer, Manny ;
Cubillos, Laura ;
Malo, Teri ;
Reuland, Daniel S. .
JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 178 (12) :1645-1658
[7]   Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test [J].
Egger, M ;
Smith, GD ;
Schneider, M ;
Minder, C .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7109) :629-634
[8]   The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Giles, Emma L. ;
Robalino, Shannon ;
McColl, Elaine ;
Sniehotta, Falko F. ;
Adams, Jean .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (03)
[9]   When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior [J].
Gneezy, Uri ;
Meier, Stephan ;
Rey-Biel, Pedro .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2011, 25 (04) :191-209
[10]   Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities A Randomized Clinical Trial [J].
Green, Beverly B. ;
Anderson, Melissa L. ;
Cook, Andrea J. ;
Chubak, Jessica ;
Fuller, Sharon ;
Kimbel, Kilian J. ;
Kullgren, Jeffrey T. ;
Meenan, Richard T. ;
Vernon, Sally W. .
JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2019, 2 (07)