You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 19, Issue 4
  • Mailed invitations for colorectal screening are effective in increasing screening participation in uninsured adults with faecal immunochemical testing: the preferred screening modality

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Prevention
Randomised clinical trial
Mailed invitations for colorectal screening are effective in increasing screening participation in uninsured adults with faecal immunochemical testing: the preferred screening modality
  1. Noelle K LoConte,
  2. Dustin A Deming
  1. Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
  1. Correspondence to: Dr Noelle K LoConte, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, 600 Highland Ave, Madison, WI 53792, USA; ns3{at}medicine.wisc.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2014-101772

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Commentary on: Gupta S, Halm EA, Rockey DC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test outreach, colonoscopy outreach and usual care for boosting colorectal cancer screening among the underserved: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1725–32.OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science

    Context

    Colorectal cancer screening is currently recommended for average risk adults aged 50–75 years. There are several modalities available to screen for colorectal cancer, including stool blood tests, colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Most guidelines recommend multiple screening modalities and the choice of which to use should be individualised to provider and patient preference. Underserved populations (uninsured and underinsured patients and racial/ethnic minorities) are known to have lower rates of cancer screening, including colorectal cancer, even if they have access to routine medical care. The optimal mechanism for screening the underserved is …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.