Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Colorectal Cancer | Study protocol

Effectiveness and implementation of mPATH™-CRC: a mobile health system for colorectal cancer screening

Authors: Anna C. Snavely, Kristie Foley, Ajay Dharod, Mark Dignan, Holly Brower, Elena Wright, David P. Miller Jr.

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely recommended but underused, even though CRC is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. The mPATH™ program is an iPad-based application designed to identify patients due for CRC screening, educate them on the commonly used screening tests, and help them select their best option, with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates.

Methods

The mPATH™ program consists of questions asked of all adult patients at check-in (mPATH™-CheckIn), as well as a module specific for patients due for CRC screening (mPATH™-CRC). In this study, the mPATH™ program is evaluated through a Type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Specifically, the study consists of three parts: (1) a cluster-randomized controlled trial of primary care clinics comparing a “high touch” evidence-based implementation strategy with a “low touch” implementation strategy; (2) a nested pragmatic study evaluating the effectiveness of mPATH-CRC™ on completion of CRC screening; and (3) a mixed-methods study evaluating factors that facilitate or impede the maintenance of interventions like mPATH-CRC™. The primary objective is to compare the proportion of patients aged 50–74 who are eligible for CRC screening who complete mPATH™-CRC in the 6th month following implementation between the “high touch” and “low touch” implementation strategies. Effectiveness of mPATH™-CRC is evaluated by comparing the proportion who complete CRC screening within 16 weeks of their visit to the clinic between a pre-implementation cohort (8 months before implementation) and a post-implementation cohort (8 months after implementation).

Discussion

This study will provide data on both the implementation of the mPATH™ program and its effectiveness in improving screening rates for CRC. In addition, this work has the potential to have an even broader impact by identifying strategies to support the sustained use of other similar technology-based primary care interventions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03843957. Registered on 18 February 2019.
Literature
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.PubMedCrossRef
2.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: Us preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2564–75.CrossRef
3.
Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Hopkins Robert H Jr, Humphrey LL, Levine J, Sweet DE, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(5):378–86.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Smith RA, Andrews K, Brooks D, DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Lortet-Tieulent J, et al. Cancer screening in the United States, 2016: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):95–114.CrossRef
5.
Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, et al. Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(7):1016.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Sharp L, Tilson L, Whyte S, O’Ceilleachair A, Walsh C, Usher C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a comparison of guaiac-based faecal occult blood testing, faecal immunochemical testing and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(5):805–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. Screening for colorectal cancer: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the us preventive services task force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2576–94.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Knudsen AB, Zauber AG, Rutter CM, et al. Estimation of benefits, burden, and harms of colorectal cancer screening strategies: Modeling study for the us preventive services task force. JAMA. 2016;315(23):2595–609.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
10.
US Preventive Services Task Force, Davidson KW, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, Cabana M, Caughey AB, et al. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2021;325(19):1965.CrossRef
11.
Sabatino SA, Thompson TD, White MC, Shapiro JA, Clarke TC, Croswell JM, et al. Cancer Screening Test Use-U.S., 2019. Am J Prev Med. 2022;63(3):431–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control CCC. 2008;19(4):339–59.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Weinberg DS, Turner BJ, Wang H, Myers RE, Miller S. A survey of women regarding factors affecting colorectal cancer screening compliance. Prev Med. 2004;38(6):669–75.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Berkowitz Z, Hawkins NA, Peipins LA, White MC, Nadel MR. Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(2):307–14.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Farmer MM, Bastani R, Kwan L, Belman M, Ganz PA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening from patients enrolled in a managed care health plan. Cancer. 2008;112(6):1230–8.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wee CC, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS. Factors associated with colon cancer screening: the role of patient factors and physician counseling. Prev Med. 2005;41(1):23–9.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Klabunde CN, Schenck AP, Davis WW. Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medicare Consumers. Am J Prev Med. 2006;30(4):313–9.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Seeff LC, Nadel MR, Klabunde CN, Thompson T, Shapiro JA, Vernon SW, et al. Patterns and predictors of colorectal cancer test use in the adult U.S. population. Cancer. 2004;100(10):2093–103.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ayres CG, Griffith HM. Perceived barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of priority clinical preventive services guidelines. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(3):150–5.PubMed
20.
21.
Østbye T, Yarnall KSH, Krause KM, Pollak KI, Gradison M, Michener JL. Is There Time for Management of Patients With Chronic Diseases in Primary Care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Katz ML, Broder-Oldach B, Fisher JL, King J, Eubanks K, Fleming K, et al. Patient-Provider Discussions about Colorectal Cancer Screening: Who Initiates Elements of Informed Decision Making? J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(9):1135–41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Zapka JM, Klabunde CN, Arora NK, Yuan G, Smith JL, Kobrin SC. Physicians’ colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev Publ Am Assoc Cancer Res Cosponsored Am Soc Prev Oncol. 2011;20(3):509–21.CrossRef
24.
Gupta S, Sussman DA, Doubeni CA, Anderson DS, Day L, Deshpande AR, et al. Challenges and Possible Solutions to Colorectal Cancer Screening for the Underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(4):dju032.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
26.
Yao N, Alcalá HE, Anderson R, Balkrishnan R. Cancer Disparities in Rural Appalachia: Incidence, Early Detection, and Survivorship: Cancer Disparities in Rural Appalachia. J Rural Health. 2017;33(4):375–81.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Doubeni CA, Laiyemo AO, Major JM, Schootman M, Lian M, Park Y, et al. Socioeconomic status and the risk of colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(14):3636–44.PubMedCrossRef
28.
James TM, Greiner KA, Ellerbeck EF, Feng C, Ahluwalia JS. Disparities in colorectal cancer screening: a guideline-based analysis of adherence. Ethn Dis. 2006;16(1):228–33.PubMed
29.
Morgan JW, Cho MM, Guenzi CD, Jackson C, Mathur A, Natto Z, et al. Predictors of Delayed-Stage Colorectal Cancer: Are We Neglecting Critical Demographic Information? Ann Epidemiol. 2011;21(12):914–21.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Siegel R, DeSantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):104–17.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Miller DP, Brownlee CD, McCoy TP, Pignone MP. The effect of health literacy on knowledge and receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a survey study. BMC Fam Pract. 2007;8:16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. In: Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA, eds. Washington: National Academies Press. 2004. Available from: https://​www.​nap.​edu/​catalog/​10883. cited 2023 Mar 20
33.
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Oldach BR, Katz ML. Health literacy and cancer screening: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;94(2):149–57.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Kutner M, Greenburg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006-483. Natl Cent Educ Stat. 2006. Available from: http://​eric.​ed.​gov/​?​id=​ED493284. cited 2015 Sep 23
36.
Anhang Price R, Zapka J, Edwards H, Taplin SH. Organizational Factors and the Cancer Screening Proces. JNCI Monogr. 2010;2010(40):38–57.CrossRef
37.
Taplin SH, Anhang Price R, Edwards HM, Foster MK, Breslau ES, Chollette V, et al. Introduction: Understanding and Influencing Multilevel Factors Across the Cancer Care Continuum. JNCI Monogr. 2012;2012(44):2–10.CrossRef
38.
Miller DP Jr, Weaver KE, Case LD, Babcock D, Lawler D, Denizard-Thompson N, et al. Usability of a Novel Mobile Health iPad App by Vulnerable Populations. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2017;5(4):e43.PubMedCrossRef
39.
40.
Miller DP, Spangler JG, Case LD, Goff DC, Singh S, Pignone MP. Effectiveness of a Web-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aid. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):608–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
Hawley S, Lillie S, Cooper G, ElstonLafata J. Managed care patients’ preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening. Am J Manag Care. 2014;20(7):555–61.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, et al. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(7):575–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Miller DP, Denizard-Thompson N, Weaver KE, Case LD, Troyer JL, Spangler JG, et al. Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):550.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
45.
46.
Bardus M, Smith JR, Samaha L, Abraham C. Mobile Phone and Web 2.0 Technologies for Weight Management: A Systematic Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(11):e259.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Matthew-Maich N, Harris L, Ploeg J, Markle-Reid M, Valaitis R, Ibrahim S, et al. Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Mobile Health Technologies for Managing Chronic Conditions in Older Adults: A Scoping Review. JMIR MHealth UHealth. 2016;4(2):e29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Joe J, Demiris G. Older adults and mobile phones for health: A review. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46(5):947–54.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Puccinelli-Ortega N, Cromo M, Foley KL, Dignan MB, Dharod A, Snavely AC, et al. Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Digital Informed Decision Making Tool in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study. Appl Clin Inform. 2022;13(01):001–9.CrossRef
50.
51.
Miller DP, Foley KL, Bundy R, Dharod A, Wright E, Dignan M, et al. Universal Screening in Primary Care Practices by Self-administered Tablet vs Nursing Staff. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(3):e221480.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Seale JP, Johnson JA, Clark DC, Shellenberger S, Pusser AT, Dhabliwala J, et al. A Multisite Initiative to Increase the Use of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention Through Resident Training and Clinic Systems Changes. Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1707–12.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1985. p. 544.
54.
Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. 1st ed. New York: Worth Publishers; 1997. p. 604.
55.
Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decis Sci. 2008;39(2):273–315.CrossRef
56.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425–78.CrossRef
57.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186–204.CrossRef
58.
Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):117.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
60.
61.
Chan WV, Pearson TA, Bennett GC, Cushman WC, Gaziano TA, Gorman PN, et al. ACC/AHA Special Report: Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Strategies: A Summary of Systematic Reviews by the NHLBI Implementation Science Work Group. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(8):1076–92.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
Ford JH II, Alagoz E, Dinauer S, Johnson KA, Pe-Romashko K, Gustafson DH. Successful Organizational Strategies to Sustain Use of A-CHESS: A Mobile Intervention for Individuals With Alcohol Use Disorders. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8):e201.PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
66.
Shaw EK, Howard J, West DR, Crabtree BF, Nease DE, Tutt B, et al. The role of the champion in primary care change efforts: from the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25(5):676–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research Issues in External Validation and Translation Methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29(1):126–53.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, Powell BJ, Dorsey CN, Clary AS, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
Hemming K, Girling AJ, Sitch AJ, Marsh J, Lilford RJ. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised controlled trials with a fixed number of clusters. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:102.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
70.
71.
Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
73.
Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002;27(4):299–309.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Penfold RB, Zhang F. Use of interrupted time series analysis in evaluating health care quality improvements. Acad Pediatr. 2013;13(6 Suppl):S38-44.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):423–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
76.
Austin PC. A comparison of the statistical power of different methods for the analysis of cluster randomization trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2007;26(19):3550–65.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Ma J, Thabane L, Kaczorowski J, Chambers L, Dolovich L, Karwalajtys T, et al. Comparison of Bayesian and classical methods in the analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with a binary outcome: the Community Hypertension Assessment Trial (CHAT). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effectiveness and implementation of mPATH™-CRC: a mobile health system for colorectal cancer screening
Authors
Anna C. Snavely
Kristie Foley
Ajay Dharod
Mark Dignan
Holly Brower
Elena Wright
David P. Miller Jr.
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-023-07273-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Trials 1/2023 Go to the issue

Correction

Correction: Internet-based stress recovery intervention for adolescents: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Effects of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (OFA-PONV trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Study protocol

The effects of intermittent fasting diet alone or in combination with probiotic supplementation in comparison with calorie-restricted diet on metabolic and hormonal profile in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Research

Predictors of participant retention in a community-based HIV prevention cohort: perspectives from the HPTN 071 (PopART) study

Study protocol

A comparison of different physical stimulation combined with platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

Effect of lung ultrasound-guided fluid deresuscitation on duration of ventilation in intensive care unit patients (CONFIDENCE): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial