Cited by 59Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Personal Navigation Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake

Open access
Ritvo, Paul G., Myers, Ronald E., Paszat, Lawrence F., Tinmouth, Jill M., McColeman, Joshua, Mitchell, Brian, Serenity, Mardie, Rabeneck, Linda·2015·Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract

Background: Prior randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that patient navigation can boost colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care. The sparse literature on pragmatic trials of interventions designed to increase colorectal cancer screening adherence motivated this trial on the impact of a patient navigation intervention that included support for performance of the participants' preferred screening test (colonoscopy or stool blood testing). Materials and Methods: Primary care patients (n = 5,240), 50 to 74 years of age, with no prior diagnosis of bowel cancer and no record of a recent colorectal cancer screening test, were identified at the Group Health Centre in northern Ontario. These patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 2,629) or a usual care control group (n = 2,611). Intervention group participants were contacted by a trained nurse navigator by telephone to discuss colorectal cancer screening. Interested patients met with the navigator, who helped them identify and arrange for performance of the preferred screening test. Control group participants received usual care. Multivariate analyses were conducted using medical records data to assess intervention impact on screening adherence within 12 months after randomization. Results: Mean patient age was 59 years, and 50% of participants were women. Colorectal cancer screening adherence was higher in the intervention group (35%) than in the control group (20%), a difference that was statistically significant (OR, 2.11; confidence interval, 1.87–2.39). Conclusion: Preference-based patient navigation increased screening uptake in a pragmatic RCT. Impact: Patient navigation increased colorectal cancer screening rates in a pragmatic RCT in proportions similar to those observed in explanatory RCTs. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(3); 506–11. ©2014 AACR.

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 · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0744

Cites

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 17 · Cited by 59

Authors
Ritvo, P. G., Myers, R. E., Paszat, L. F., Tinmouth, J. M., McColeman, J., Mitchell, B., Serenity, M., & Rabeneck, L.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • Group Health Centre (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Ritvo, Paul G.
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
506-511
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2076347442
Cited by
59
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
patient navigation, colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, nurse navigators, colonoscopy, primary care, screening adherence
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Colorectal Neoplasms, Early Detection of Cancer, Patient Navigation

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