Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Effects of Academic Detailing, Panel Management and Mailed Multi-Target Stool-DNA Testing on Colorectal Cancer Screening

Arturas Klugas, Sara Elsayed, Michael Rodriguez, Shourya Verma, Andre’ Bateman and Matthew Stack
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2024, jabfm.2023.230082R1; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230082R1
Arturas Klugas
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sara Elsayed
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Rodriguez
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shourya Verma
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
BBA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andre’ Bateman
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthew Stack
From the MSU/MyMichigan Medical Center Alma Family Medicine Residency Program, Alma, MI (AK, MS); Family Medicine Residency-McLaren Flint (SE); Western Michigan University Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine–Sports Medicine Fellowship, Kalamazoo, MI (MR); Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (SV); University of the West Indies at Mona, Mona, Saint Andrews, Jamaica (AB).
DHA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Academic detailing, patient-panel management, and mailed, stool-based testing have each been utilized to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in rural clinics. The effectiveness of combining these interventions to increase CRC screening during COVID-19 restrictions was unclear.

Methods: We explored the effects of a multi-component intervention including academic detailing, active patient panel management, and mailed MT-sDNA testing on colorectal cancer screening in our rural family medicine clinic. Baseline interventions included EMR-based provider alerts and mailed patient reminders. Our intervention (March–May 2020) and follow-up periods (June–August 2020) coincided with the initial COVID-19 surge, giving us the opportunity to observe the effects of our intervention during COVID-19 restrictions.

Results: A total of 407 patients were eligible and overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Our clinic’s CRC screening rate increased significantly after intervention (69.7%) as compared with before (64.3%) (P = <0.01; 95%CI = 5.39-5.4). Our clinic’s CRC screening rates increased significantly during the initial 3 months of the COVID-19 surge (67.8%) compared with the same period the prior year. (62.3%) (P = .003; 95%CI = 3.4-7.6). Our CRC screening rates increased after intervention (69.7%) compared with our regional health system (67%) (P = <0.01; 95%CI = 2.6-2.77). Our weekly stool-based CRC screening increased (94% increase) compared with other health systems nationally (61 to 83% decrease).

Discussion: A multi-component intervention, including academic detailing, panel management, and mailed MT-sDNA testing, can lead to significant increases in CRC screening in a rural family medicine clinic, empowering providers to maintain an effective CRC screening outreach during COVID-19 related restrictions.

  • Academic Detailing
  • Cancer Screening
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • COVID-19
  • DNA
  • Family Medicine
  • Rural Health

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has the third highest cancer incidence among both men and women in the United States with 80,690 new cases in men and 70,340 new cases in women based on 2022 estimates.1 Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer mortality for males (28,400 deaths) and females (24,180 deaths) in the US based on 2022 estimates.1

Screening for colorectal cancer is recommended for asymptomatic men and women ages 50–75 (ages 45–49 grade B recommendation) at average risk via the following: colonoscopy every 10 year; flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years + Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) every year; flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years; CT colonography every 5 years; multitarget stool DNA test (sDNA-FIT) every 1–3 years or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) or Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) test annually.2

Despite multiple effective screening methods, CRC screening is often underutilized. Only 63.4% of females and 61.9% of males are up to date on CRC screening.3 In addition, state to state and rural/urban colorectal cancer screening disparities are recognized. At the state level, screening rates ranged from a high of 76.3% (Massachusetts) to a low of 58.8% (New Mexico). Nationally, screening rates for urban populations were 68.2% compared with a rural screening rate of 65.5%. States with the highest screening rates had the smallest urban-rural disparities (74.6 vs 73.0%) whereas states with the lowest screening rates had the highest urban-rural disparities (61.3% vs 56.9%).4

Interventions to increase CRC screening can be categorized as: interventions to increase provider delivery of screening services (provider assessment and feedback; provider reminders); Interventions to increase community demand (patient reminders; small media; group education) and interventions to increase community access (reducing structural barriers; reducing patient costs).5 The largest screening increases were seen among multicomponent interventions that combined approaches from each of the 3 strategies.5

One approach to increasing provider delivery is academic detailing (AD). Academic detailing is defined as an “interactive educational outreach to physicians to provide unbiased, noncommercial, evidence-based information about medications and other therapeutic decisions with the goal of improving patient care.”6 This approach parallels the “marketing” strategies used by pharmaceutical sales representative (“detailers”) to increase use of their company’s products. However, academic detailing is a peer to peer educational outreach in which medical professionals go to colleagues offices and provide brief, objective information to optimize implementation of evidence-based guidelines.6 Academic detailing involved a 6 step process: introductions; needs assessment; key message and benefits; handling objections; summary; closing the visit.6 Academic detailing can influence breast cancer screening,7 pediatric developmental screening,8 HIV testing9 and family physician prescribing behavior.10 Academic detailing can lead to increased rates of screening colonoscopies and fecal occult blood testing in rural settings.11 Academic detailing to increase CRC screening has proven both feasible and acceptable in a metropolitan12 and rural13 setting. However, although AD may be clinically effective in improving CRC screening, some have questioned its cost effectiveness.14

Patient panel management is one approach to increasing community demand and access to screening services. Panel management is defined as “a set of tools and processes for population care that are applied systematically at the level of a primary care panel, with PCP’s directing proactive care for their empaneled patients.”15 Panel management involves “identifying and reaching out to patients in the panel of a primary care practice who have unmet preventative and chronic condition care needs.”16 Active panel management is regarded as one of the key building blocks to high -performing primary care practices.17 Active panel management may be a central component of a continuous quality improvement approach to increasing CRC screening.18

One important intervention shown to increase community access to CRC screening is the mailed FIT test. Interventions using mailed FIT significantly increase CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care.19 Provision of CRC screening kits by direct mail, use of preaddressed stamped return envelopes and patient reminders seem to be effective in increasing CRC screening in rural and low income populations.20 Multi-target Stool DNA (MT-sDNA) tests combine the features of direct mail, preaddressed postage paid return packaging and patient reminders with increased sensitivity but slightly reduced specificity compare with FIT testing.21

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) designated the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak a pandemic.22 In addition in March 2020, the American College of Surgeons issued recommendations that hospitals and health systems minimize, postpone or cancel elective operations and endoscopies in an effort to minimize unnecessary SARS-CoV-2 transmissions and direct health care resources toward caring for the surge of SARS-CoV-2 patients.23 Subsequent to these and similar guidelines, issued in other nations, colorectal cancer screening declined significantly both in the United States and internationally.24

We began our intervention to increase our clinics colorectal cancer screening in March of 2020, coincidental to and concurrent with the initial SARS-CoV-2 surge. Therefore, we faced the added challenge of trying to increase CRC screening in our rural, family medicine clinic during a time when CRC screening was declining nationally and internationally.24 The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of a multicomponent intervention, centered on academic detailing, patient-panel management and mailed MT-sDNA tests, on CRC screening in a rural family medicine clinic during SARs-CoV-2 related restrictions on endoscopic procedures.

Methods

Our study was a within- groups (prepost) and between groups (intervention – control) design and was not randomized. We “controlled” our study by comparing our clinic results against: 1) our clinic’s CRC screening data from the year before the SARs-CoV-2 pandemic (March–June 2019); 2) our overall health system CRC screening rates; 3) CRC screening data from other health systems for the same time period as reported in the literature.25–27 All researchers were trained in Good Clinical Practice for the protection of human subjects and our study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Our population was age eligible adults in our rural, Midwest family medicine clinic. Inclusion criteria were asymptomatic male and female patients, ages 50–75, at average risk of CRC who were due/overdue for CRC screening (our protocol was established before the USPSTF 2021 grade B recommendation2 that CRC screening begin at age 45). Frequency of recommended screening depended on the method used. Exclusion criteria included: previous gastrointestinal cancer; Lynch syndrome; family adenomatous polyposis; inflammatory bowel disease; patients symptomatic on presentation (rectal bleeding) requiring diagnostic colonoscopies; patients with abnormal results on previous CRC screening necessitating more frequent colonoscopies; and patients on hospice.2

Our health system already had 2 interventions in place to increase CRC screening before our study: EMR based provider alerts of care gaps and reminders mailed to patients overdue for screening. Our baseline (preintervention) CRC screening rates are reflective of these 2 interventions already being in place.

We conducted a phone and e-mail survey among medical providers in our health system who had the highest CRC screening rates (exemplar28 providers) to identify their best practices. Most of them were skilled in active patient panel management, using the EMR to identify patients on their panel overdue for health screenings and to facilitate these screenings. Many of these exemplar providers also utilized mailed stool-based CRC screening that included addressed, postage- paid return packaging.

We conducted 2, brief online academic detailing sessions with our clinic providers in early March 2020 which included a review of: colorectal cancer screening guidelines; how to access their panel in the EMR and identify patients overdue for screening; how to order the MT-sDNA test and track patient completion and results. Providers were encouraged to dedicate 1 hour each week to panel management, during which they: identified patients overdue for screening, called and educated them about CRC screening and, if appropriate, recommend home based MT-sDNA testing. The intervention period was March through end of May 2020 and outcome data were tracked through August 2020.

Our multi-component intervention involved several strategies in accordance with the Community Preventive Service Task Force Recommendations5 and is summarized in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Multi-Component CRC Screening Intervention in Rural Family Medicine Clinic March–May 2020

Our independent (predictor) variable was our multi-component CRC screening intervention. Our dependent (outcome) variables included: Stool-Based CRC screenings ordered per month; Stool-Based CRC screenings completed per month; Stool- based CRC screenings ordered or completed per week; and overall colorectal cancer screening rates. The colorectal cancer screening rate statistic was based on the number of eligible patients who completed screening/number of patients eligible for screening during the time period. Stool based CRC screenings ordered and completed per month were compared before (Feb/March) and after (April/May) intervention. Stool based CRC screenings ordered/completed per week were compared within-groups (before and after) for our clinic and between groups (our clinic results compared with results from other clinics cited in the literature from the same time period25–27). Change in overall CRC screening rates are compared with-in groups (pre and post intervention), between our clinic (intervention) and our regional health system (control) and between our clinic during the initial 4 months (March–June, 2020) of the SARS-CoV-2 surge and our clinics data during the same time period the year prior.

Within-group (before and after) analysis was performed using paired sample t test. Between group analysis was performed by comparing our study outcomes with regional and national test values cited in the literature25–27 using 1 -sample t test. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.

Results

Our study population consisted of 407 patients in our rural Midwest family medicine clinic who were eligible and overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patient eligibility, participation and disposition is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Flow diagram for patient eligibility and participation in Multi-component colorectal cancer (CRC) screening study March–May, 2020.

Patient demographics were obtained via a self- report survey. Overall, our study population tended to be older, white, middle class, female, and more likely to report higher education and having a primary care provider compared with county wide, U.S Census Bureau statistics. The older age of our sample is likely a result of age criteria to be eligible for CRC screening. The higher rate of having a PCP may be due to the fact our sample population was drawn from our electronic medical record. The gender, educational and socio-economic differences in of our sample may be reflective of self- sampling bias and/or differences between our definition of terms and that of the U.S Census Bureau.29 Patient demographic of our sample and for the county wide population are shown in Table 2.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Demographic Characteristics of Multi-Component Study Sample and County-Wide Population March 2020

We observed a significant increase in the number of stool- based CRC screenings ordered per month in our clinic after intervention (n = 64) as compared with before (n = 1) (t = 4.49; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 1.96-5.46) We observed a significant increase in the number of stool based CRC screening completed per month in our clinic after intervention (n = 26) as compared with before (n = 1) (t = 2.71; P = .02; 95% CI = 0.32-2.62). (See Figure 2).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2.

Stool-based CRC screening ordered and completed by month 2020 in a rural family medicine clinic.

We observed a significant increase in weekly stool-based CRC screenings in our clinic after intervention (average 16 screens per week) as compared with before (average 1 screen per week) (t = 10.94; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 0.71-1.05). We observed a significant increase in our clinics weekly stool – based CRC screening (average of 1 screen per week to 16 per week) when compared with our regional health system25 (average of 210 per week to 51 per week) (t = 2719; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 159.8 to 160.1). We observed a significant increase in our clinic’s average weekly stool-based CRC screening when compared with health systems in the San Francisco26 (370 per week to 60 per week) (t = 5286; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 310.8 to 311) and Los Angeles areas27 (154 per week to 60 per week) (t = 1614; P = <0.01; 95%CI = 94.8 to 9). Although the total weekly stool-base CRC screening of these larger health systems was still higher than our individual clinic, our stool-based CRC screens were trending up during COVID- 19 restrictions (94% increase) whereas our regional and the national health system rates were trending down (61 to 83% decrease) during the same time period. See Table 3.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Clinic Stool-Based CRC Screening Orders per Week Compared with Other Health Systems Pre and Post Initial COVID-19 Surge, 2020

We observed a significant increase in the overall CRC screening rate in our clinic after intervention (69.7%) as compared with before intervention. (64.3%) (t = 1231.9; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 5.39-5.4;). We observed a significant increase in the overall CRC screening rates in our clinic during the initial 4 months (March–June 2020) of the SARS-CoV-2 surge (67.8%) compared with our clinic CRC screening rate from the same period the year prior (62.3%) (t = 8.5; P = .003; 95% CI = 3.4 to 7.6). Our health system experience a significant decrease in overall CRC screening rates during the initial 4 months of the SARS-CoV-2 surge (68.3%) compared with the same 4 month time period the year prior (74.5%) (t = 7.3; P = .005; 95% CI = 3.5–8.7) We observed a significant increase in our overall clinic CRC screening rates (69.7%) as compared with our regional health system rates (67%) (t = 74.2; P = <0.01; 95% CI = 2.6-2.77). See Figure 3.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 3.

Colorectal cancer screening for clinic and health system by month 2019 and 2020.

During our 3-month postintervention follow up (June–August 2020) we observed a decrease in some clinic outcome measures including: stool-based CRC screens orders (38, 22, and 24 orders placed) and stool-based CRC screens completed (20, 13, and 12 completed). After our intervention period, our clinicians focused their academic detailing and panel management efforts onto other preventive services (breast cancer screening). It is possible that our decline in CRC screening during the follow up phase was due to this abrupt redirection of our preventive screening efforts.

Discussion

Our multi-component intervention, centered on academic detailing, patient-panel management and mailed MT-sDNA, led to a significant increase in CRC screening in our rural family medicine clinic. Of additional importance, we were able to achieve this significant increase during a time when CRC screening was declining regionally,25 nationally,26,27 and internationally24 due to SARS-CoV-2 restrictions. Our study parallels and furthers the evidence that increased use of mailed stool -based CRC screening may counterbalance and offset SARS-CoV-2 induced decreases in screening endoscopies.30

Our findings confirm and extend the evidence a that multi-component intervention, focused on increasing provider delivery, community demand and community access, can significantly increase CRC screening.5 The individual and separate effects of academic detailing11 and mailed FIT19,20 on CRC screening have been studied previously. However, the literature on the effects of patient-panel management on CRC screening was limited.18 Our study demonstrates that active panel management can be an important component, when combined with other strategies, to increased colorectal screening. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to demonstrate the effectiveness of combining academic detailing, panel management and mailed MT-sDNA testing during SARS-Cov-2 restrictions.

Our interventions are applicable to busy primary care providers and under-resourced patients in medically underserved settings. Academic detailers come to the clinic, eliminating the time and expense of CME travel. Medical assistants can be trained to facilitate panel management. Mailed MT-sDNA tests reduce the financial, scheduling, and transportation barriers that colonoscopies pose for patients. Other strengths and limitations of our study are detailed in Table 4.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Strengths and Limitations of Our Multi-Component Intervention to Increase CRC Screening Rates in a Rural Family Medicine Clinic During Initial COVID-19 Surge, 2020

Future studies could recruit multiple clinics from a broader geographic area and incorporate stratified sampling, so the sample was more representative of the US population distribution. A design which randomized clinics into intervention and “treatment as usual” (control) clinics would reduce the effects of confounding variables. Future studies could be designed so that the unique contributions of academic detailing, panel management and mailed MT-sDNA could be individually analyzed via multiple regression.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that a multi-component intervention, centered on academic detailing, active patient-panel management and mailed MT-sDNA can lead to significant increases in CRC screening in a rural family medicine clinic even during SARS-CoV-2 induced restrictions on endoscopic screening.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank James Lyons, MD, for his contributions to research design, patient recruitment, and panel management. We would also like to thank Emily Greeson, PhD, Kathleen Lowenstein, PhD, and Michael O’Rourke, PhD, for their contribution to research design, patient recruitment, data analysis, and the patient demographic survey.

Notes

  • This article was externally peer reviewed.

  • This is the Ahead of Print version of the article.

  • Funding: None.

  • Conflict of interest: None.

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/00/00/000.full.

  • Received for publication March 1, 2023.
  • Revision received July 3, 2023.
  • Accepted for publication July 10, 2023.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Siegel R,
    2. Miller K,
    3. Fuchs H,
    4. Jemal A
    . Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022;72:7–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2021;325:1965–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Hall IJ,
    2. Tangka FKL,
    3. Sabatino SA,
    4. Thompson TD,
    5. Graubard BI,
    6. Breen N
    . Patterns and trends in cancer screening in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis 2018;15:E97. Published 26 July 2018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Carmichael Cowan H,
    2. McIntyre M,
    3. Velopulos RC
    . Disparities in colorectal cancer mortality for rural populations in the United States: does screening matter? Am J Surg 2020;219:988–9.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    Community Preventive Services Task Force. Increasing colorectal cancer screening: multicomponent interventions. Community Preventive Services Task Force findings and rationale statement. Available at: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/media/pdf/Cancer-Screening-Multicomponent-Colorectal.pdf. page last updated; October 8, 2019.
  6. 6.↵
    NaRCAD. Introductory guide to academic detailing. National Resource Center for Academic Detailing.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gorin SS,
    2. Ashford AR,
    3. Lantigua R,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of academic detailing on breast cancer screening among primary care physicians in an underserved community. J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19:110–21.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Honigfeld L,
    2. Chandhok L,
    3. Spiegelman K
    . Engaging pediatricians in developmental screening: the effectiveness of academic detailing. J Autism Dev Disord 2012;42:1175–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lubelchek RJ,
    2. Hotton AL,
    3. Taussig D,
    4. Amarathithada D,
    5. Gonzalez M
    . Scaling up routine HIV testing at specialty clinics: assessing the effectiveness of an academic detailing approach. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2013;64 Suppl 1:S14–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Chhina HK,
    2. Bhole VM,
    3. Goldsmith C,
    4. Hall W,
    5. Kaczorowski J,
    6. Lacaille D
    . Effectiveness of academic detailing to optimize medication prescribing behavior of family physicians. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2013;16:511–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Dignan M,
    2. Shelton B,
    3. Slone SA,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of a primary care practice intervention for increasing colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky. Prev Med 2014;58:70–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Lawson G,
    2. Basch CH,
    3. Zybert P,
    4. Wolf RL,
    5. Basch CE
    . Acceptability of physician directed academic detailing to increase colorectal cancer screening: an application of the RESPECT approach. Health Promot Perspect 2015;5:169–75.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Curry WJ,
    2. Lengerich EJ,
    3. Kluhsman BC,
    4. et al
    . Academic detailing to increase colorectal cancer screening by primary care practices in Appalachian Pennsylvania. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Shankaran V,
    2. Luu TH,
    3. Nonzee N,
    4. et al
    . Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5370–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Neuwirth EE,
    2. Schmittdiel JA,
    3. Tallman K,
    4. Bellows J
    . Understanding panel management: a comparative study of an emerging approach to population care. Perm J 2007;11:12–20.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Chen EH,
    2. Bodenheimer T
    . Improving population health through team-based panel management: comment on “electronic medical record reminders and panel management to improve primary care of elderly patients.” Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1558–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Bodenheimer T,
    2. Ghorob A,
    3. Willard-Grace R,
    4. Grumbach K
    . The 10 building blocks of high-performing primary care. Ann Fam Med 2014;12:166–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Marx R,
    2. Tse WM,
    3. Golden L,
    4. Johnson EC
    . Increasing colorectal cancer screening at community-based primary care clinics in San Francisco. J Public Health Manag Pract 2016;22:466–71.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Jager M,
    2. Demb J,
    3. Asghar A,
    4. et al
    . Mailed outreach is superior to usual care alone for colorectal cancer screening in the USA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:2489–96.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Freeman M,
    3. Shannon J,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States—how, what and when? BMC Cancer 2018;18:40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Imperiale T,
    2. Ransohoff D,
    3. Itzkowitz S,
    4. et al
    . Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1287–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Ghebreyesus T
    . WHO director-general’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. March 11, 2020, Geneva.
  23. 23.↵
    American College of Surgeons. COVID-19: Recommendations for management of elective surgical procedures. March 13, 2020. Available at: https://www.facs.org/for-medical-professionals/covid-19/clinical-guidance/elective-surgery.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Mazidimoradi A,
    2. Tiznobaik A,
    3. Salehiniya H
    . Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Cancer 2022;53:730–44.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Gorin SNS,
    2. Jimbo M,
    3. Heizelman R,
    4. Harmes KM,
    5. Harper DM
    . The future of cancer screening after COVID-19 may be at home. Cancer 2021;127:498–503.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Patel S,
    2. Issaka RB,
    3. Chen E,
    4. Somsouk M
    . Colorectal cancer screening and COVID-19. Am J Gastroenterol 2021;116:433–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Myint A,
    2. Roh L,
    3. Yang L,
    4. Connolly L,
    5. Esrailian E,
    6. May FP
    . Noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests help close screening gaps during Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Gastroenterology 2021;161:712–4.e1.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Scheid DC,
    2. Hamm RM,
    3. Ramakrishnan K,
    4. McCarthy LH,
    5. Mold JW
    , Oklahoma Physicians Resource/Research Network. Improving colorectal cancer screening in family medicine: an Oklahoma Physicians Resource/Research Network (OKPRN) study. J Am Board Fam Med 2013;26:498–507.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    United States Census Bureau. Quick facts Gratiot County, Michigan. US Census. Published 2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/gratiotcountymichigan. Accessed December 13, 2023.
  30. 30.↵
    1. Fedewa SA,
    2. Star J,
    3. Bandi P,
    4. et al
    . Changes in cancer screening in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2215490.
    OpenUrl
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 38 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 38, Issue 1
January-February 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Academic Detailing, Panel Management and Mailed Multi-Target Stool-DNA Testing on Colorectal Cancer Screening
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
3 + 8 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Effects of Academic Detailing, Panel Management and Mailed Multi-Target Stool-DNA Testing on Colorectal Cancer Screening
Arturas Klugas, Sara Elsayed, Michael Rodriguez, Shourya Verma, Andre’ Bateman, Matthew Stack
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2024, jabfm.2023.230082R1; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230082R1

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of Academic Detailing, Panel Management and Mailed Multi-Target Stool-DNA Testing on Colorectal Cancer Screening
Arturas Klugas, Sara Elsayed, Michael Rodriguez, Shourya Verma, Andre’ Bateman, Matthew Stack
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2024, jabfm.2023.230082R1; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230082R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Academic Detailing
  • Cancer Screening
  • Colorectal Cancer
  • COVID-19
  • DNA
  • Family Medicine
  • Rural Health

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire