Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • 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

Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)

Beverly B. Green, Melissa L. Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Laura Mae Baldwin, Leah Tuzzio, Sheryl Catz, Alison Cole and Sally W. Vernon
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine March 2016, 29 (2) 191-200; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150290
Beverly B. Green
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Melissa L. Anderson
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
MS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jessica Chubak
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Mae Baldwin
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leah Tuzzio
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sheryl Catz
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Cole
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sally W. Vernon
From Group Health Permanente, Seattle WA (BBG, LT); the Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (BBG, MLA, JC, SC); the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle (BBG, LMB, AC); the University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle (JC); the University of California–Davis Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, Sacramento (SC); and the University of Texas, Houston, School of Public Health, Houston (SWV).
PhD
  • 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

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening (SOS) and patient-centered medical home timeline, August 2008 to November 2010.

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

    Patient-centered medical home process map for medical assistant/nurse (MA) in-reach and outreach colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) processes.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Participant Characteristics By Assignment to Usual Care or Active Interventions and Exposure to a Patient-Centered Medical Home in Year 1 of the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial
    Characteristics of Exposure GroupSOS Randomization Group By Duration of Exposure to a Medical Home (Months)
    SOS Usual CareSOS Intervention
    ≤4>4 and <8≥8≤4>4 and <8≥8
    Participants351 (30.1)316 (27.1)499 (42.8)1048 (30.0)935 (26.7)1515 (43.3)
    Age at randomization (years)
        50–64299 (85.2)265 (83.9)428 (85.8)895 (85.4)784 (83.9)1303 (86.0)
        65–7352 (14.8)51 (16.1)71 (14.2)153 (14.6)151 (16.2)212 (14.0)
    Female sex196 (55.8)168 (53.2)289 (57.9)570 (54.4)510 (54.6)811 (53.5)
    Race/ethnicity
        Black17 (4.9)12 (3.8)15 (3.1)57 (5.5)51 (5.5)76 (5.0)
        Asian28 (8.0)14 (4.5)22 (4.5)56 (5.4)47 (5.1)70 (4.6)
        Hispanic8 (2.3)15 (4.9)20 (4.1)25 (2.4)28 (3.0)58 (3.8)
        Non-Hispanic white282 (80.8)261 (83.1)407 (82.7)845 (81.0)738 (79.5)1203 (79.6)
        Other14 (4.0)12 (3.8)28 (5.7)60 (5.8)64 (6.9)104 (6.9)
    General health
        Excellent/very good221 (63.1)184 (58.2)317 (63.7)676 (64.7)565 (60.4)972 (64.2)
        Good105 (30.0)100 (31.7)133 (26.7)303 (29.0)298 (31.9)452 (29.9)
        Fair/poor24 (6.9)32 (10.1)48 (9.6)66 (6.3)72 (7.7)90 (5.9)
    Married or living with a partner253 (72.3)224 (71.1)360 (72.3)772 (73.9)704 (75.4)1126 (74.3)
    Highest education
        High school graduate/GED or less51 (14.5)62 (19.7)78 (15.7)121 (11.6)155 (16.6)233 (15.4)
        Some college112 (31.9)107 (34.0)149 (29.9)315 (30.1)322 (34.5)462 (30.5)
        Bachelor's degree or higher188 (53.6)146 (46.4)271 (54.4)611 (58.4)457 (48.9)820 (54.1)
    Smoking status
        Current36 (10.4)56 (18.2)62 (12.7)117 (11.4)99 (10.8)175 (11.8)
        Former92 (26.5)80 (26.0)137 (28.1)299 (29.1)262 (28.5)426 (28.8)
        Never219 (63.1)172 (55.8)288 (59.1)611 (59.5)557 (60.7)880 (59.4)
    Never tested for CRC (before randomization)146 (41.6)153 (48.4)240 (48.1)438 (41.8)433 (46.3)750 (49.5)
    First-degree relative with CRC18 (5.2)17 (5.5)20 (4.1)57 (5.5)45 (4.9)58 (3.9)
    • Data collection occurred between 2008 and 2009. Data are n (%).

    • CRC, colorectal cancer; SOS, Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake* among Patients Receiving Usual Care in the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial, by Exposure to a Patient-Centered Medical Home
    Usual Care OnlyDuration of Exposure to Medical Home (months)
    ≤4 (n = 351)>4 and <8 (n = 316)≥8 (n = 499)
    Primary outcome
        Any CRCS*
            Unadjusted percent (95% CI)36.8 (31.9–41.9)34.8 (29.7–40.2)44.9 (40.6–49.3)
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.00 (Referent)0.99 (0.81–1.18)1.29 (1.15–1.42)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent−0.2 (−6.9 to 6.5)10.1 (5.7–14.6)
    Secondary outcomes
        Any fecal test§
            Unadjusted percentage (95% CI)21.1 (17.1–25.7)20.6 (16.5–25.4)32.7 (28.7–36.9)
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.00 (Referent)0.99 (0.64–1.35)1.58 (1.22–1.94)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent−0.1 (−7.6 to 7.3)12.1 (5.9–18.2)
        Any endoscopy
            Unadjusted percentage (95% CI)21.4 (17.4–26.0)20.6 (16.5–25.4)18.2 (15.1–21.9)
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.00 (Referent)1.03 (0.77–1.29)0.95 (0.73–1.18)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent0.6 (−4.5 to 5.8)−0.9 (−5.4 to 3.6)
    • ↵* Any colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) test included completion of fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy during year 1 of the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (SOS). All patients were overdue for CRCS.

    • ↵† Relative risk (RR) of screening in the exposure group relative to the group with ≤4 months of exposure to a patient-centered medical home (PCMH), adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and prior CRCS.

    • ↵‡ Adjusted difference is the percentage screened in the exposure group minus the percentage screened in group with ≤4 months of exposure to a PCMH, adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and prior CRCS.

    • ↵§ Hemoccult SENSA.

    • CI, confidence interval.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Colorectal Cancer Screening Test Completion* in the Usual Care and Intervention Arms By Exposure to a Patient-Centered Medical Home
    Duration of Exposure to PCMH By Treatment Arm
    ≤4 Months>4 and <8 Months≥8 Months
    UC (n = 351)Intervention (n = 1048)UC (n = 316)Intervention (n = 935)UC (n = 499)Intervention (n = 1515)
    Primary outcome
        Any CRCS
            Unadjusted percentage (95% CI)36.8 (31.9–41.9)70.7 (67.9–73.4)34.8 (29.7–40.2)69.3 (66.3–72.2)44.9 (40.6–49.3)66.1 (63.6–68.4)
        SOS intervention effect
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.0 (Referent)1.98 (1.79–2.17)1.0 (Referent)1.96 (1.62–3.42)1.0 (Referent)1.49 (1.34–1.63)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent34.4 (30.6–38.2)Referent34.1 (27.4–40.8)Referent21.9 (17.4–26.4)
    Secondary outcomes
        Any fecal test§
            Unadjusted percentage (95% CI)21.1 (17.1–25.7)63.8 (60.9–66.7)20.6 (16.5–25.4)61.8 (58.7–64.9)32.7 (28.7–36.9)58.0 (55.4–60.4)
        SOS intervention effect
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.0 (Referent)3.05 (2.48–3.62)1.0 (Referent)2.98 (2.20–3.76)1.0 (Referent)1.80 (1.51–2.09)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent42.2 (37.6–46.9)Referent41.2 (36.0–46.3)Referent26.2 (20.9–31.5)
    Any endoscopy
            Unadjusted percentage (95% CI)21.4 (17.4–26.0)20.7 (18.4–23.3)20.6 (16.5–25.4)19.4 (16.9–22.0)18.2 (15.1–21.9)17.0 (15.2–19.0)
        SOS intervention effect
            Adjusted RR† (95% CI)1.0 (Referent)1.00 (0.86–1.14)1.0 (Referent)0.92 (0.64–1.21)1.0 (Referent)0.93 (0.79–1.08)
            Adjusted difference‡ (95% CI)Referent0.0 (−2.8 to 2.8)Referent−1.6 (−8.0 to 4.8)Referent−1.2 (−4.2 to 1.7)
    • Interaction P value to test for differences in Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (SOS) intervention effects by level of exposure to a patient-centered medical home: P < .01 for any colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) and fecal test; P = .49 for any endoscopy.

    • ↵* CRCS tests included completion of fecal occult blood tests, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy during year one of the SOS trial. All patients were overdue for CRCS.

    • ↵† RR = Relative Risk of CRCS testing in SOS intervention group relative to SOS usual care group, adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and prior testing.

    • ↵‡ Adjusted difference = percent tested in SOS intervention group relative to SOS usual care group, adjusted for age, sex, race, education, and prior CRC tests.

    • ↵§ Hemoccult SENSA.

    • CI, confidence interval; PCMH, patient-centered medical home; UC, usual care.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 29 (2)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 29, Issue 2
March-April 2016
  • 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.
Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)
(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 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)
Beverly B. Green, Melissa L. Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Laura Mae Baldwin, Leah Tuzzio, Sheryl Catz, Alison Cole, Sally W. Vernon
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2016, 29 (2) 191-200; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150290

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates Increased after Exposure to the Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH)
Beverly B. Green, Melissa L. Anderson, Jessica Chubak, Laura Mae Baldwin, Leah Tuzzio, Sheryl Catz, Alison Cole, Sally W. Vernon
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Mar 2016, 29 (2) 191-200; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150290
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Outcomes of Health System Structures, Highly Pertinent Clinical Information, Idea Stimulators, Clinical Reviews, and Prediction Tools: JABFM Exemplified
  • 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

  • Cancer Screening
  • Colon Cancer
  • Medical Home

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