Cited by 26Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

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

Open access
Facciorusso, Antonio, Demb, Joshua, Mohan, Babu P., Gupta, Samir, Singh, Siddharth·2021·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22581

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [20]Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Facciorusso, A., Demb, J., Mohan, B. P., Gupta, S., & Singh, S.
Affiliations
  • Ospedali Riuniti di Foggia (IT)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Singh, Siddharth
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2021-08-25
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
e2122581
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3195991747
Cited by
26
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Pfizer
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (C19 20-394, UG3CA233314, F32CA239360, CA222866, R37CA222866)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R03DK129631, K23DK117058)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, financial incentives, screening uptake, health promotion, reminders, older adults, screening completion, risk of bias, low-quality evidence, cost-effectiveness, health disparities, racial and ethnic disparities, socioeconomic disparities, health care costs, quality of care, health care outcomes
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Motivation, Reimbursement Mechanisms, United States, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review