Abstract #170 Table 1

Interventional studies to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among the minority population

First author, year publishedControl and intervention definitionTotal number of subjects (intervention group)Total number of controls (standard or no intervention)% Minority: African-Americans and HispanicsCRC screening completion rate: Controls vs. Intervention, p-value
Myers, 2007 Control: No intervention
Group 1: Standard letter
Group 2: Standard letter and tailored messages
Group 3: Standard, tailored message and phone call
Group 1: N=387
Group 2: N=386
Group 3: N=386
N= 387 58% Controls: 32.56%
Group 1: 45.74%
Group 2: 43.78%
Group 3: 48.45%, P < 0.05
Horne, 2014 Control: Educational Material
Intervention: Patient Navigator
N=578 N=642 >50% Controls vs intervention: 91% vs 94%, P = 0.04
Cole, 2017 Control: Patient Motivational Interview for Blood Pressure Intervention1: Patient Navigation
Intervention 2: Patient Navigation and Motivational Interview
N1=234
N2=254
N = 238 100% Control vs intervention 1 vs intervention 2: 8.4% vs 17.5% vs. 17.8, P < 0.01
DeGroff, 2017 Control: Standard Care
Intervention: Patient Navigation
N=429 N=427 >50% Control vs Intervention: 53.2% vs 61.1%, P = 0.02
Ford, 2006 Control: Patients did not receive monthly communication from case managers
Intervention: Patients received monthly communications from case managers
N= 352 N = 351 100% Control vs Intervention: 51.3% vs 68.9%, P = .10
Basch, 2006 Control: patients were mailed printed materials
Intervention: Patients received a tailored telephone outreach
N = 226 N = 230 >50% Control vs Intervention: 6.1% vs 27.0%, 95% CI: 2.6, 7.7
Khankari, 2007 Control: baseline screening rate
Intervention: Mailing screening-eligible patients a physician letter. Physicians were also trained to review health literacy and ‘best practices.’’
N = 154 N = 174 >95% Control vs Intervention: 11.5% vs 27.9%, P < .001
Friedman, 2007 Medical residents received educational intervention
Control = Rate of CRC screening by residents 6 months prior to education
Intervention = Rate of CRC screening by residents 6 months post education
N = 132 N = 116 100% Control vs Intervention: 26.7% vs 59.1%, P < 0.001