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 ComponentsaPreferred LanguagebEstimate TypePre-InterventionPost-InterventionPre/Post-Intervention DifferencePre/Post Intervention Difference Accounting for Comparison Groupc
45–49Electronic Outreach + Standing Order ProtocolCantoneseIntercept4.9 (3.2, 6.6)6.4 (4.6, 8.3)1.5 (−1.0, 4.1)−1.1 (−4.7, 2.5)
Slope0.4 (0.1, 0.6)0.0 (−0.6, 0.5)−0.4 (−1.0, 0.1)−0.8 (−1.6, 0.0)
EnglishIntercept1.1 (0.4, 1.7)3.0 (2.3, 3.8)2.0 (1.0, 2.9)1.7 (0.3, 3.1)
Slope0.0 (0.0, 0.1)−0.1 (−0.3, 0.1)−0.1 (−0.3, 0.1)−0.3 (−0.6, 0.1)
SpanishIntercept1.5 (0.1, 2.9)6.6 (5.1, 8.1)5.1 (3.0, 7.1)3.8 (0.9, 6.7)
Slope0.0 (−0.2, 0.2)0.0 (−0.5, 0.4)−0.1 (−0.5, 0.4)−0.1 (−0.8, 0.5)
CantoneseIntercept11.9 (9.5, 14.4)5.7 (3.0, 8.4)−6.2 (−9.9, −2.6)−8.9 (−14.0, −3.7)
Slope1.0 (0.7, 1.4)0.2 (−0.5, 1.0)−0.8 (−1.6, 0.0)−1.2 (−2.4, −0.1)
EnglishIntercept1.1 (0.3, 1.8)2.6 (1.8, 3.4)1.5 (0.4, 2.6)1.2 (−0.3, 2.8)
Slope0.1 (0.0, 0.2)0.1 (−0.1, 0.3)0.0 (−0.2, 0.3)−0.1 (−0.5, 0.2)
SpanishIntercept2.6 (0.8, 4.3)7.5 (5.5, 9.4)4.9 (2.3, 7.5)3.6 (−0.1, 7.3)
Slope0.1 (−0.2, 0.3)−0.3 (−0.8, 0.3)−0.3 (−0.9, 0.3)−0.4 (−1.2, 0.4)
51–55Standing Order ProtocolCantoneseIntercept4.2 (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
EnglishIntercept2.2 (1.4, 2.9)2.4 (1.6, 3.2)0.2 (−0.9, 1.3)NA
Slope0.0 (−0.1, 0.1)0.1 (−0.1, 0.3)0.1 (−0.1, 0.4)NA
SpanishIntercept5.0 (3.2, 6.8)6.3 (4.4, 8.3)1.3 (−1.3, 4.0)NA
Slope0.0 (−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.