Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Participant flow. Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Figure 2.
Percentage of patients up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening before and after intervention rollout. Includes all analyzed patients. Dashed lines represent pre- and post-intervention regression lines for the percentage of patients aged 45 to 49 up-to-date with screening. Solid lines represent pre- and post-intervention regression lines for the percentage of patients aged 51 to 55 up-to-date with screening. The vertical dotted line represents the date of intervention rollout.
- Figure 3.
Thirty-day Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) completion before and after intervention rollout. Excludes patients who received mailed FIT. Dashed lines represent pre- and post-intervention regression lines for 30-day FIT completion for patients aged 45 to 49. Solid lines represent pre- and post-intervention regression lines for 30-day FIT completion for patients aged 51 to 55. The vertical dotted line represents the date of intervention rollout.
Tables
45–49 (n = 3,873) 51–55 (n = 3,934) Age (years) Mean (S.D.) 47.0 (1.4) 52.5 (1.1) Gender Woman 1,922 (48.9) 1,983 (51.2) Man 2,010 (51.1) 1,887 (48.7) Other 2 (0.1) 3 (0.1) Race/ethnicity Asian 899 (22.9) 1,150 (29.7) Black or African American 515 (13.1) 537 (13.9) Latino/a 1,711 (43.5) 1,301 (33.6) Other 192 (4.9) 177 (4.6) White 582 (14.8) 672 (17.4) Missing 35 (0.9) 36 (0.9) Preferred language Cantonese 421 (10.7) 650 (16.8) English 1,947 (49.5) 1,954 (50.5) Other 219 (5.6) 287 (7.4) Spanish 1,346 (34.2) 981 (25.3) Missing 1 (0.0) 1 (0.0) Insurance type Healthy San Franciscoa 968 (24.6) 404 (10.4) Healthy workersb 710 (18.0) 962 (24.8) Medicaid 1,975 (50.2) 2,126 (54.9) Medicare 192 (4.9) 314 (8.1) Other 89 (2.3) 67 (1.7) aInsurance for low-income county residents not eligible for Medicaid.
bInsurance provided to some county employees.
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
- Table 2.
Number of Patients Aged 45–49 Due for Screening on Date of Intervention Rollout That Received Each Component of the Intervention
Intervention Components n (%) Email only 115 (4) Mailed FIT + Text 663 (21) Mailed FIT + Text + Email 817 (26) No outreach 392 (12) Text + Email 756 (24) Text only 458 (14) Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Pre-Intervention Slope Post-Intervention Slope Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupb 45 to 49 Mailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) 2.8 (2.5, 3.1) 2.3 (2.0, 2.7) 1.7 (1.2, 2.2) Electronic outreach + standing order protocol 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) 2.0 (1.7, 2.2) 1.0 (0.7, 1.3) 0.3 (0.0, 0.7) 51 to 55 No new interventions −0.2 (−0.4, −0.1) 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) 0.7 (0.4, 0.9) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using ordinary least squares estimation.
aMailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol includes all patients regardless of intervention received. Electronic outreach + standing order protocol excludes patients who were mailed FIT.
bTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table 4.
Effect of Standing Order Protocol and Electronic Outreach on 30-Day FIT Completion Rate, Excluding Patients Who Were Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Estimate Type Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Pre/Post Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupb 45–49 Standing Order Protocol + Electronic Outreach Intercept 1.6 (1.0, 2.3) 4.9 (4.2, 5.7) 3.3 (2.3, 4.3) 2.6 (1.2, 4.0) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) −0.2 (−0.4, 0.0) −0.3 (−0.7, 0.0) Standing Order Protocol Only Intercept 2.4 (1.6, 3.2) 4.9 (4.0, 5.8) 2.5 (1.3, 3.7) 1.8 (0.1, 3.5) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.2) −0.2 (−0.5, 0.0) −0.4 (−0.8, 0.0) 51–55 No New Interventions Intercept 3.4 (2.6, 4.2) 4.0 (3.2, 4.9) 0.7 (−0.3, 1.7) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.4) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.4) NA Estimated using segmented linear regression with ordinary least squares estimation.
aStanding order protocol + electronic outreach excludes patients who were mailed FIT. Standing order protocol only excludes patients who were mailed FIT or received electronic outreach.
bTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
- Table B1.
Effect of Interventions on the Percentage-up-to-Date with Screening After Accounting for Autocorrelation, With and Without Adjustment for Changes in the Comparison Group
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupb 45 to 49 Mailed FIT + Standing order protocol + Electronic outreach 2.5 (1.6, 3.4) 2.0 (0.7, 3.2) Standing order protocol + Electronic Outreach 1.1 (0.5, 1.8) 0.6 (−0.4, 1.5) 51 to 55 No new interventions 0.6 (−0.1, 1.2) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using generalized least squares estimation to account for autocorrelation.
aMost but not all patients aged 45-49 received electronic outreach. The population health team attempted electronic outreach to all patients aged 45–49 due for screening, but only 59% were sent email and 87% were sent text messages.
bTo estimate the adjusted effect we subtracted the effect in the comparison group from the unadjusted effect in the 45–49 year old age group using linear combinations of the coefficients of generalized least squares regression models.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table C1.
Effect of Interventions on the Percentage of Patients up-to-Date with Screening, Subgroup Analysis by Gender
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Gender Pre-Intervention Slope Post-Intervention Slope Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Mailed FIT + Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Female 0.4 (0.2, 0.6) 3.1 (2.8, 3.5) 2.7 (2.3, 3.1) 1.9 (1.3, 2.4) Male 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) 2.4 (2.1, 2.7) 2.0 (1.7, 2.3) 1.5 (1.1, 2.0) Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Female 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) 2.3 (2.0, 2.6) 1.3 (1.0, 1.7) 0.5 (0.1, 0.9) Male 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) 1.6 (1.3, 1.9) 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 0.2 (−0.2, 0.7) 51–55 No New Interventions Female −0.2 (−0.4, 0.0) 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) 0.8 (0.4, 1.2) NA Male −0.3 (−0.4, −0.1) 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) 0.5 (0.1, 0.8) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using ordinary least squares estimation.
aMailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol includes all patients regardless of intervention received. Electronic outreach + standing order protocol excludes patients who were mailed FIT.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table C2.
Effect of Interventions on the Percentage of Patients up-to-Date with Screening, Subgroup Analysis by Race/Ethnicity
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Race/Ethnicityb Pre-Intervention Slope Post-Intervention Slope Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Mailed FIT + Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Asian 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 2.7 (2.1, 3.2) 2.0 (1.3, 2.6) 1.3 (0.4, 2.2) Black or African American 0.4 (0.2, 0.6) 1.9 (1.6, 2.3) 1.6 (1.1, 2.0) 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) Latino/a 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) 3.4 (3.1, 3.7) 3.1 (2.7, 3.4) 2.3 (1.7, 2.8) White 0.3 (0.1, 0.5) 2.0 (1.7, 2.4) 1.7 (1.3, 2.1) 1.8 (1.3, 2.4) Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Asian 1.3 (1.1, 1.5) 1.9 (1.5, 2.4) 0.7 (0.2, 1.2) 0.0 (−0.7, 0.8) Latino/a 0.8 (0.6, 0.9) 2.7 (2.4, 3.1) 1.9 (1.6, 2.3) 1.0 (0.5, 1.5) White 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) 1.5 (1.1, 1.9) 0.9 (0.5, 1.3) 1.0 (0.4, 1.7) 51–55 No New Interventions Asian −0.2 (−0.5, 0.1) 0.5 (0.0, 1.1) 0.7 (0.1, 1.3) NA Black or African American −0.5 (−0.7, −0.3) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.5) 0.6 (0.2, 1.0) NA Latino/a −0.4 (−0.6, −0.3) 0.4 (0.0, 0.7) 0.8 (0.4, 1.2) NA White 0.2 (0.0, 0.4) 0.1 (−0.3, 0.4) −0.1 (−0.5, 0.3) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using ordinary least squares estimation.
aMailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol includes all patients regardless of intervention received. Electronic outreach + standing order protocol excludes patients who were mailed FIT.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded. The analysis excluding patients mailed FIT was not completed for Black/African-American because network attempted to mail FIT to all of these patients.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table C3.
Effect of Interventions on the Percentage of Patients up-to-Date with Screening, Subgroup Analysis by Race/Ethnicity
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Preferred Languageb Pre-Intervention Slope Post-Intervention Slope Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Mailed FIT + Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Cantonese 0.7 (0.3, 1.0) 3.1 (2.5, 3.8) 2.4 (1.7, 3.2) 1.3 (0.3, 2.4) English 0.4 (0.2, 0.5) 2.0 (1.7, 2.3) 1.6 (1.3, 1.9) 1.4 (1.0, 1.8) Spanish 0.4 (0.2, 0.6) 3.6 (3.3, 4.0) 3.3 (2.8, 3.7) 2.0 (1.4, 2.6) Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Cantonese 1.5 (1.3, 1.7) 2.3 (1.8, 2.8) 0.8 (0.2, 1.4) −0.4 (−1.2, 0.5) English 0.9 (0.8, 1.0) 1.1 (0.9, 1.4) 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) 0.0 (−0.4, 0.4) Spanish 0.9 (0.7, 1.0) 2.9 (2.5, 3.3) 2.0 (1.6, 2.5) 0.7 (0.0, 1.3) 51–55 No New Interventions Cantonese −0.5 (−0.9, −0.1) 0.6 (−0.1, 1.3) 1.1 (0.4, 1.9) NA English 0.0 (−0.2, 0.1) 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) 0.2 (−0.1, 0.6) NA Spanish −0.8 (−1.0, −0.6) 0.5 (0.1, 0.9) 1.3 (0.8, 1.7) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using ordinary least squares estimation.
aMailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol includes all patients regardless of intervention received. Electronic outreach + standing order protocol excludes patients who received mailed FIT.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table C4.
Effect of Interventions on the Percentage of Patients up-to-Date with Screening, Subgroup Analysis by Insurance Type
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Insurance Typeb Pre-Intervention Slope Post-Intervention Slope Pre/Post-Intervention Slope Difference Pre/Post Intervention Slope Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Mailed FIT + Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Healthy San Francisco 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) 3.5 (3.2, 3.9) 2.9 (2.5, 3.3) 1.2 (0.7, 1.8) Healthy Workers 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 2.8 (2.2, 3.4) 2.1 (1.4, 2.8) 1.1 (0.2, 2.0) Medicaid 0.3 (0.2, 0.4) 2.3 (2.1, 2.6) 2.0 (1.7, 2.3) 1.7 (1.2, 2.1) Medicare 0.0 (−0.1, 0.2) 3.0 (2.7, 3.3) 3.0 (2.7, 3.3) 2.9 (2.4, 3.3) Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Healthy San Francisco 1.2 (1.0, 1.3) 2.8 (2.4, 3.1) 1.6 (1.2, 2.0) −0.2 (−0.8, 0.4) Healthy Workers 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) 2.3 (1.7, 2.8) 0.8 (0.3, 1.4) −0.1 (−0.9, 0.7) Medicaid 0.8 (0.7, 0.9) 1.5 (1.2, 1.7) 0.7 (0.4, 1.0) 0.3 (−0.2, 0.7) Medicare 0.3 (0.2, 0.5) 1.7 (1.3, 2.1) 1.4 (0.9, 1.8) 1.3 (0.6, 1.9) 51–55 No New Interventions Healthy San Francisco −0.7 (−0.9, −0.5) 1.0 (0.6, 1.4) 1.7 (1.3, 2.1) NA Healthy Workers −0.4 (−0.7, −0.1) 0.6 (0.0, 1.2) 1.0 (0.3, 1.7) NA Medicaid −0.2 (−0.3, 0.0) 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) 0.4 (0.1, 0.7) NA Medicare 0.2 (0.0, 0.3) 0.3 (0.0, 0.6) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.4) NA Estimated with segmented linear regression using ordinary least squares estimation.
aMailed FIT + electronic outreach + standing order protocol includes all patients regardless of intervention received. Electronic outreach + standing order protocol excludes patients who received mailed FIT.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
Abbreviation: FIT, fecal immunochemical test.
- Table C5.
Effect of Standing Order Protocol and Electronic Outreach on 30-Day FIT Completion Rate excluding Patients Who Were Mailed Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT), Subgroup Analysis by Gender
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Genderb Estimate Type Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Pre/Post Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Female Intercept 2.0 (1.1, 2.9) 6.8 (5.8, 7.8) 4.8 (3.5, 6.2) 4.4 (2.5, 6.3) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.4 (−0.6, −0.1) −0.5 (−0.8, −0.2) −0.8 (−1.3, −0.4) Male Intercept 1.3 (0.7, 2.0) 3.3 (2.5, 4.0) 2.0 (1.0, 2.9) 1.1 (−0.3, 2.4) Slope 0.0 (0.0, 0.1) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.3) 0.0 (−0.2, 0.3) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.4) Female Intercept 3.4 (2.3, 4.5) 6.3 (5.1, 7.5) 2.9 (1.3, 4.5) 2.5 (0.2, 4.8) Slope 0.2 (0.1, 0.4) −0.3 (−0.6, 0.0) −0.5 (−0.9, −0.1) −0.9 (−1.4, −0.3) Male Intercept 1.8 (0.9, 2.7) 3.8 (2.8, 4.7) 2.0 (0.7, 3.3) 1.1 (−0.8, 2.9) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.3) 0.0 (−0.3, 0.3) 0.0 (−0.4, 0.4) 51-55 Standing Order Protocol Female Intercept 4.0 (2.9, 5.1) 4.4 (3.2, 5.6) 0.4 (−1.2, 2.1) NA Slope −0.1 (−0.2, 0.1) 0.3 (0.0, 0.6) 0.4 (0.0, 0.7) NA Male Intercept 2.8 (1.9, 3.7) 3.7 (2.7, 4.7) 0.9 (−0.4, 2.2) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.2) 0.0 (−0.3, 0.3) NA Estimated using segmented linear regression with ordinary least squares estimation.
aStanding order protocol + electronic outreach excludes patients who were mailed FIT. Standing order protocol only excludes patients who were mailed FIT or received electronic outreach.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
- Table C6.
Effect of Standing Order Protocol and Electronic Outreach on 30-Day Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion Rate excluding Patients Who Were Mailed Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT), Subgroup Analysis by Race/Ethnicity
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Race/Ethnicityb Estimate Type Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Asian Intercept 2.6 (1.3, 3.9) 6.0 (4.6, 7.4) 3.4 (1.5, 5.3) 3.1 (0.5, 5.8) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.3) −0.3 (−0.7, 0.1) −0.5 (−0.9, −0.1) −0.8 (−1.4, −0.2) Latino/a Intercept 1.4 (0.3, 2.5) 5.8 (4.6, 7.1) 4.5 (2.8, 6.1) 3.4 (1.1, 5.7) Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.4, 0.3) −0.1 (−0.4, 0.3) −0.2 (−0.7, 0.3) White Intercept 1.1 (0.3, 1.9) 2.8 (1.9, 3.7) 1.7 (0.5, 2.9) 1.5 (−0.2, 3.2) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.4, 0.1) −0.2 (−0.4, 0.1) −0.2 (−0.6, 0.1) Asian Intercept 5.8 (4.1, 7.4) 5.0 (3.2, 6.9) −0.7 (−3.2, 1.7) −1.0 (−4.4, 2.5) Slope 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) 0.0 (−0.5, 0.5) −0.4 (−1.0, 0.1) −0.8 (−1.5, 0.0) Latino/a Intercept 2.1 (0.7, 3.6) 5.8 (4.2, 7.5) 3.7 (1.5, 5.9) 2.6 (−0.5, 5.7) Slope 0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.5, 0.4) −0.1 (−0.6, 0.4) −0.2 (−0.9, 0.5) White Intercept 1.2 (0.2, 2.3) 5.1 (4.0, 6.2) 3.9 (2.4, 5.4) 3.7 (1.5, 5.8) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.5 (−0.8, −0.2) −0.6 (−0.9, −0.2) −0.6 (−1.1, −0.2) 51–55 Standing Order Protocol Asian Intercept 4.7 (3.0, 6.3) 4.9 (3.1, 6.7) 0.2 (−2.2, 2.7) NA Slope −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) 0.2 (−0.3, 0.7) 0.3 (−0.2, 0.9) NA Latino/a Intercept 4.1 (2.7, 5.6) 5.2 (3.6, 6.8) 1.1 (−1.1, 3.3) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) 0.1 (−0.4, 0.5) 0.1 (−0.4, 0.6) NA White Intercept 2.3 (1.3, 3.3) 2.5 (1.4, 3.6) 0.2 (−1.3, 1.7) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.4) 0.1 (−0.3, 0.4) NA Estimated using segmented linear regression with ordinary least squares estimation.
aStanding order protocol + electronic outreach excludes patients who were mailed FIT. Standing order protocol only excludes patients who were mailed FIT or received electronic outreach.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded. Not estimated for Black/African-American because network attempted to mail FIT to all of these patients.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
- Table C7.
Effect of Standing Order Protocol and Electronic Outreach on 30-Day Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion Rate excluding Patients Who Were Mailed Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT), Subgroup Analysis by Preferred Language
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Preferred Languageb Estimate Type Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Pre/Post Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Cantonese Intercept 4.9 (3.2, 6.6) 6.4 (4.6, 8.3) 1.5 (−1.0, 4.1) −1.1 (−4.7, 2.5) Slope 0.4 (0.1, 0.6) 0.0 (−0.6, 0.5) −0.4 (−1.0, 0.1) −0.8 (−1.6, 0.0) English Intercept 1.1 (0.4, 1.7) 3.0 (2.3, 3.8) 2.0 (1.0, 2.9) 1.7 (0.3, 3.1) Slope 0.0 (0.0, 0.1) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) −0.3 (−0.6, 0.1) Spanish Intercept 1.5 (0.1, 2.9) 6.6 (5.1, 8.1) 5.1 (3.0, 7.1) 3.8 (0.9, 6.7) Slope 0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) 0.0 (−0.5, 0.4) −0.1 (−0.5, 0.4) −0.1 (−0.8, 0.5) Cantonese Intercept 11.9 (9.5, 14.4) 5.7 (3.0, 8.4) −6.2 (−9.9, −2.6) −8.9 (−14.0, −3.7) Slope 1.0 (0.7, 1.4) 0.2 (−0.5, 1.0) −0.8 (−1.6, 0.0) −1.2 (−2.4, −0.1) English Intercept 1.1 (0.3, 1.8) 2.6 (1.8, 3.4) 1.5 (0.4, 2.6) 1.2 (−0.3, 2.8) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.3) 0.0 (−0.2, 0.3) −0.1 (−0.5, 0.2) Spanish Intercept 2.6 (0.8, 4.3) 7.5 (5.5, 9.4) 4.9 (2.3, 7.5) 3.6 (−0.1, 7.3) Slope 0.1 (−0.2, 0.3) −0.3 (−0.8, 0.3) −0.3 (−0.9, 0.3) −0.4 (−1.2, 0.4) 51–55 Standing Order Protocol Cantonese Intercept 4.2 (1.8, 6.7) 6.9 (4.2, 9.6) 2.7 (−1.0, 6.3) NA Slope −0.3 (−0.7, 0.0) 0.1 (−0.7, 0.8) 0.4 (−0.4, 1.2) NA English Intercept 2.2 (1.4, 2.9) 2.4 (1.6, 3.2) 0.2 (−0.9, 1.3) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.3) 0.1 (−0.1, 0.4) NA Spanish Intercept 5.0 (3.2, 6.8) 6.3 (4.4, 8.3) 1.3 (−1.3, 4.0) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.2, 0.3) 0.1 (−0.4, 0.6) 0.1 (−0.5, 0.7) NA Estimated using segmented linear regression with ordinary least squares estimation.
aStanding order protocol + electronic outreach excludes patients who were mailed FIT. Standing order protocol only excludes patients who were mailed FIT or received electronic outreach.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post-intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
- Table C8.
Effect of Standing Order Protocol and Electronic Outreach on 30-Day Fecal immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion Rate excluding Patients Who Were Mailed FIT, Subgroup Analysis by Insurance Type
Age Group (Years) Intervention Componentsa Insurance Typeb Estimate Type Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Pre/Post-Intervention Difference Pre/Post Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc 45–49 Electronic Outreach + Standing Order Protocol Healthy San Francisco Intercept 1.6 (0.1, 3.0) 6.9 (5.3, 8.6) 5.4 (3.2, 7.6) 4.0 (0.8, 7.1) Slope 0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.6, 0.3) −0.2 (−0.6, 0.3) −0.1 (−0.8, 0.6) Healthy Workers Intercept 3.5 (2.2, 4.8) 6.4 (4.9, 7.8) 2.8 (0.9, 4.8) 1.2 (−1.6, 3.9) Slope 0.2 (0.1, 0.4) −0.3 (−0.7, 0.1) −0.5 (−1.0, −0.1) −0.9 (−1.5, −0.3) Medicaid Intercept 1.2 (0.4, 2.0) 3.7 (2.8, 4.5) 2.5 (1.3, 3.7) 2.0 (0.4, 3.7) Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.2) −0.1 (−0.4, 0.2) −0.2 (−0.6, 0.2) Medicare Intercept 0.9 (−0.7, 2.5) 2.8 (1.0, 4.6) 1.9 (−0.5, 4.2) 2.7 (−0.7, 6.1) Slope 0.1 (−0.2, 0.3) 0.3 (−0.2, 0.8) 0.2 (−0.3, 0.7) −0.3 (−1.0, 0.5) Healthy San Francisco Intercept 2.0 (−0.4, 4.5) 8.5 (5.8, 11.2) 6.5 (2.9, 10.2) 5.1 (−0.1, 10.3) Slope 0.0 (−0.4, 0.3) −0.5 (−1.2, 0.3) −0.5 (−1.3, 0.4) −0.4 (−1.5, 0.8) Healthy Workers Intercept 7.8 (5.9, 9.7) 4.0 (1.9, 6.1) −3.8 (−6.6, −1.0) −5.5 (−9.4, −1.5) Slope 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) 0.4 (−0.2, 0.9) −0.3 (−0.9, 0.4) −0.6 (−1.5, 0.3) Medicaid Intercept 1.6 (0.7, 2.4) 4.4 (3.5, 5.3) 2.9 (1.6, 4.1) 2.4 (0.7, 4.1) Slope 0.1 (0.0, 0.2) −0.2 (−0.4, 0.1) −0.3 (−0.5, 0.0) −0.3 (−0.7, 0.0) Medicare Intercept 0.6 (−1.7, 2.9) 1.2 (−1.3, 3.7) 0.6 (−2.8, 4.0) 1.5 (−3.3, 6.2) Slope 0.0 (−0.3, 0.3) 0.7 (0.0, 1.4) 0.7 (−0.1, 1.4) 0.2 (−0.9, 1.3) 51–55 Standing Order Protocol Healthy San Francisco Intercept 4.2 (1.8, 6.7) 5.7 (3.0, 8.4) 1.4 (−2.2, 5.1) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.4, 0.3) −0.1 (−0.8, 0.7) −0.1 (−0.9, 0.7) NA Healthy Workers Intercept 4.0 (2.1, 5.9) 5.7 (3.6, 7.7) 1.7 (−1.1, 4.5) NA Slope −0.2 (−0.5, 0.0) 0.1 (−0.4, 0.7) 0.4 (−0.3, 1.0) NA Medicaid Intercept 3.2 (2.4, 4.0) 3.6 (2.7, 4.6) 0.4 (−0.8, 1.7) NA Slope 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.3) 0.1 (−0.2, 0.4) NA Medicare Intercept 2.1 (−0.2, 4.4) 1.3 (−1.3, 3.8) −0.8 (−4.2, 2.6) NA Slope −0.1 (−0.4, 0.2) 0.4 (−0.3, 1.1) 0.5 (−0.3, 1.3) NA Estimated using segmented linear regression with ordinary least squares estimation.
aStanding order protocol + electronic outreach excludes patients who were mailed FIT. Standing order protocol only excludes patients who were mailed FIT or received electronic outreach.
bVariable levels with small numbers of observations were excluded.
cTo account for the possibility that the pre/post intervention difference in the 45–49 age group might be affected by events other than the intervention rollout, we calculated estimates of the effect of the intervention by subtracting the pre/post-intervention difference observed in 51–55 age group from the pre/post-intervention difference observed in the 45–49 age group.
