David Adler, Nancy Wood, Kevin Fiscella, Karen Mustian, Ellen Tourtelot, Joely Merriman, Sydney Chamberlin, Beau Abar
{"title":"Low-cost interventions to increase uptake of cervical cancer screening among emergency department patients: Results of a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"David Adler, Nancy Wood, Kevin Fiscella, Karen Mustian, Ellen Tourtelot, Joely Merriman, Sydney Chamberlin, Beau Abar","doi":"10.1111/acem.15101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.15101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is preventable. CC screening decreases CC mortality. Emergency department (ED) patients are at disproportionately high risk for nonadherence with CC screening recommendations. The ED, therefore, is a target-rich environment for interventions to promote CC screening.
Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to test and compare the efficacies of (1) basic referral for CC screening and (2) basic referral plus a text messaging intervention, grounded in behavioral change theory, to promote uptake of CC screening among ED patients. Participants aged 21-65, identified as in need of CC screening, were randomized to study arms and followed up at 150 days to assess interval CC screening uptake (primary outcome) and analyze methods-related moderators of intervention effects. Participants were recruited from a large, urban ED and a small, rural ED within the same health care system. Intervention arms were compared to historical controls.
Results: A total of 4035 patients were surveyed, with 1089 identified as requiring CC screening and subsequently randomized. Upon 150-day follow-up, 20% of individuals in the basic referral arm and 23% of individuals in the basic referral plus text messaging arm had obtained screening. Screening uptake in the historical control group was found to be 10% over a 150-day period. The overall difference between prospective arms was not significant (p = 0.219). However, moderation analysis found that women ≥40 years old demonstrated greater uptake of screening after the higher intensity intervention compared to the lower (p = 0.032). The differences in screening uptake between both interventions, individually and combined, when compared to controls was significant (p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusions: This study demonstrates that both of the evaluated low-intensity ED-based interventions significantly increase subsequent CC screening uptake compared to historical controls. The higher intensity intervention significantly increased screening uptake compared to the lower intensity intervention among women ≥40 years old.
期刊介绍:
Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine.
The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more.
Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.