Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Physicians of the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network
NCT ID: NCT03552744
Last Updated: 2019-06-19
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
109 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2018-04-26
2019-04-01
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
When patients are offered a choice of screening test (colonoscopy vs. FOBT), they are as likely to opt for one as the other. Patient preferences are unlikely to vary much between PCP practices, so distribution of colonoscopy and FOBT within each practice should also be roughly equal. Family physicians are recognized as the most trusted professional to discuss CRC screening in Switzerland. However, many primary care physicians (PCPs) prefer prescribing colonoscopy over FOBT, but physician preference for method seems to vary widely between regions. If physician preferences and local medical culture currently influence choice of method more strongly than patient preferences, encouraging PCPs to diagnose patient preferences for screening method may reduce the number of PCPs who prescribe only one method. An earlier study in Switzerland showed that training PCPs and giving them educational support and decision aids raised the number who intend to prescribe colonoscopy and FOBT in equal proportions. A randomized controlled trial in the US showed that when patients were offered both FOBT and colonoscopy rather than only colonoscopy alone, more patients were screened for CRC. Offering choice of method may thus increase overall screening rates.
The Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network (Sentinella) is a cooperative surveillance project including the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), PCPs representatives and the five Swiss institutes of family medicine. A sample of 150 to 250 general practitioners, internists and pediatricians in private practices from all regions of Switzerland report weekly morbidity data to the network using irreversibly anonymized patient data collected during consultations. In 2017, 91 out of 129 eligible PCPs of the Sentinella network participated in a cross-sectional data collection on CRC screening. The Sentinella network appears ideally suited to perform an intervention in order to modify screening practices and measure outcomes using the same collection form as in 2017.
This study will test the benefits of a prepackaged training program in participatory medicine sent by post to PCPs in Switzerland. The package is designed to improve their diagnoses of patient preferences for screening and screening method (colonoscopy or FOBT). The study begins with the hypothesis that giving PCPs evidence summaries on CRC screening, decision aids for patients, and performance feedback on the 2017 data collection will increase the number of PCPs whose patients include at least one screened with FOBT, and who will prescribe at least one FOBT/FIT (Fecal Immunochemical Test) instead of prescribing only colonoscopy. This might reduce variation in care between PCP practices by increasing variation in methods of screening prescribed within each PCP practices. Analyses from the 2017 data collection suggest that fewer patients refused CRC testing in practices that offered both methods than in practices that offered only colonoscopy. This intervention might increase screening rates overall, while respecting patient's autonomy to refuse the test and to be prescribed the test they prefer.
The study will compare outcomes among PCPs allocated to the intervention group to those in the control group, and will be measured by collecting anonymous structured patient data on 40 consecutive patients by PCPs and questionnaires filled by PCPs.
The study is designed to fit within the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework for structuring data collection. RE-AIM ensures that a study's outcomes for future implementation and dissemination works are collected. The RE-AIM criteria will be used to identify the translatability and public health impact of this intervention, and for making clear to future stakeholders the internal and external validity of study results.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Randomized Controlled Trial on Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Quality Circles of Primary Care Physicians
NCT03510858
Dissemination of Colorectal Cancer Screening to Primary Care Physicians
NCT00441311
Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Predicted Risk
NCT05357508
FOcUs on Colorectal CAncer oUtcomes: Long-Term Study
NCT03965325
Colonoscopy or Fecal Occult Blood Test in Screening Healthy Participants for Colorectal Cancer
NCT00102011
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
SCREENING
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intervention group
Mailed training intervention
PCPs from the intervention group will be mailed an intervention package that includes:
1. 2-page structured evidence summary on CRC screening and information about Colonoscopy \& FIT ("Decision box")
2. patient decision aid (20-page booklet) on CRC screening for distribution to patients (Decision Aid)
3. video example for the PCP, which illustrates a participatory approach to discussing CRC screening with a patient
4. 4-page abridged version of the booklet to support PCPs when they discuss CRC screening with patients during a clinical visit ("Decision Board")
5. individualized 1-page summary of PCP screening practices comparing their individual prescription patterns to group patterns, based on the data collected in 2017 ("Performance card")
6. 2-page document that encourages PCPs still using the inferior guaiac-based FOBT to switch to FIT and includes list of laboratories from which they can order FIT
7. sample FIT for PCPs who may not be familiar with its contents and use
Control group
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Mailed training intervention
PCPs from the intervention group will be mailed an intervention package that includes:
1. 2-page structured evidence summary on CRC screening and information about Colonoscopy \& FIT ("Decision box")
2. patient decision aid (20-page booklet) on CRC screening for distribution to patients (Decision Aid)
3. video example for the PCP, which illustrates a participatory approach to discussing CRC screening with a patient
4. 4-page abridged version of the booklet to support PCPs when they discuss CRC screening with patients during a clinical visit ("Decision Board")
5. individualized 1-page summary of PCP screening practices comparing their individual prescription patterns to group patterns, based on the data collected in 2017 ("Performance card")
6. 2-page document that encourages PCPs still using the inferior guaiac-based FOBT to switch to FIT and includes list of laboratories from which they can order FIT
7. sample FIT for PCPs who may not be familiar with its contents and use
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patient-level: Each PCP will collect data on 40 consecutive patients aged 50 to 75 years old seen in PCP offices over a 2 weeks to 2 months period. Patients will be included if there is a face-to-face consultation billed for at least 5 minutes at the practice.
50 Years
75 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Swiss National Science Foundation
OTHER
University of Bern
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Reto Auer, MD, MAS
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Institute of primary health care (BIHAM), University of Bern
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern
Bern, , Switzerland
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Meester RG, Doubeni CA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Goede SL, Levin TR, Quinn VP, Ballegooijen Mv, Corley DA, Zauber AG. Colorectal cancer deaths attributable to nonuse of screening in the United States. Ann Epidemiol. 2015 Mar;25(3):208-213.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.11.011. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
Fedewa SA, Cullati S, Bouchardy C, Welle I, Burton-Jeangros C, Manor O, Courvoisier DS, Guessous I. Colorectal Cancer Screening in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Trends (2007-2012) in Socioeconomic Disparities. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 6;10(7):e0131205. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131205. eCollection 2015.
Gigerenzer G. Towards a paradigm shift in cancer screening: informed citizens instead of greater participation. BMJ. 2015 May 5;350:h2175. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h2175. No abstract available.
Schroy PC 3rd, Emmons KM, Peters E, Glick JT, Robinson PA, Lydotes MA, Mylvaganam SR, Coe AM, Chen CA, Chaisson CE, Pignone MP, Prout MN, Davidson PK, Heeren TC. Aid-assisted decision making and colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Dec;43(6):573-83. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.08.018.
European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012
publique, O.f.d.l.s., Dépistage du cancer du côlon. 2013: p. p. 455
Bulliard JL, Ducros C, Levi F. [Organized screening for colorectal cancer: challenges and issues for a Swiss pilot study]. Rev Med Suisse. 2012 Jul 11;8(348):1464-7. French.
Klabunde CN, Lanier D, Nadel MR, McLeod C, Yuan G, Vernon SW. Colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians: recommendations and practices, 2006-2007. Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jul;37(1):8-16. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.008. Epub 2009 May 13.
McQueen A, Bartholomew LK, Greisinger AJ, Medina GG, Hawley ST, Haidet P, Bettencourt JL, Shokar NK, Ling BS, Vernon SW. Behind closed doors: physician-patient discussions about colorectal cancer screening. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Nov;24(11):1228-35. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1108-4. Epub 2009 Sep 18.
Meissner HI, Breen N, Klabunde CN, Vernon SW. Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake among men and women in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006 Feb;15(2):389-94. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0678.
Cooper GS, Koroukian SM. Geographic variation among Medicare beneficiaries in the use of colorectal carcinoma screening procedures. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Aug;99(8):1544-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.30902.x.
Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):961-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.961. No abstract available.
Mulley AG, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients' preferences matter. BMJ. 2012 Nov 8;345:e6572. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e6572. No abstract available.
Selby K, Cornuz J, Gachoud D, Bulliard JL, Nichita C, Dorta G, Ducros C, Auer R. Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys. BMJ Open. 2016 May 13;6(5):e011086. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011086.
Inadomi JM, Vijan S, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Thomas JP, Lin YV, Munoz R, Lau C, Somsouk M, El-Nachef N, Hayward RA. Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a randomized clinical trial of competing strategies. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Apr 9;172(7):575-82. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.332.
Hurlimann D, Limacher A, Schabel M, Zanetti G, Berger C, Muhlemann K, Kronenberg A; Swiss Sentinel Working Group. Improvement of antibiotic prescription in outpatient care: a cluster-randomized intervention study using a sentinel surveillance network of physicians. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2015 Feb;70(2):602-8. doi: 10.1093/jac/dku394. Epub 2014 Oct 17.
Glasgow RE. RE-AIMing research for application: ways to improve evidence for family medicine. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006 Jan-Feb;19(1):11-9. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.19.1.11.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
RCTSentinella2018
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.