Patient ComplianceNCT02553538
Improving Comprehensive Cancer Screening Among Vulnerable Patients Using Patient Navigation
A study testing Patient Navigation in people with Patient Compliance, run by Massachusetts General Hospital.
Trial summary
Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to improve rates of cancer screening in vulnerable populations. Most cancer PN programs are located in community health centers and focus on a single cancer. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 21 to 75 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Patient Compliance
- What is being tested?
- Patient Navigation
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,612 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Apr 2014to Dec 2014
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 21 to 75 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age 21-75
- Seen in MGPC Practices within the Past 3 Years
- Linked to a Specific PCP or to a Specific Practice
Who cannot join
- A PCP Outside of the MGPC-PBRN network
- Greater Than 75 Years Old
- MGH Chelsea Health Center Patients
About this study
Official title: Improving Comprehensive Cancer Screening Among Vulnerable Patients Using Patient Navigation as Part of a Population-Based Health IT System: A Randomized Control Trial
Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to improve rates of cancer screening in vulnerable populations. Most cancer PN programs are located in community health centers and focus on a single cancer. The investigators will evaluate the impact of PN program on breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients receiving care in a large, academic, primary care network using a population-based IT system.
Read the detailed description
It is important to note that the TopCare system is currently the standard of care in the MGPC-PBRN. As such, this proposal does not involve evaluating the TopCare system or the patients and providers using it. Rather, the study evaluates the part of the TopCare system that involves the automated identification and referral to PN of patients at increased risk of screening non-adherence. All eligible patients overdue for cancer screening tests will receive usual care that includes a reminder letter and referral to a scheduling delegate for follow-up. Since the TopCare system represents usual care for patients with the MGH primary care network, no patient contact will occur solely for research purposes. The study will involve randomly assigning participants overdue for screening and identified as high risk for not completing screening to early or delayed PN. The investigators believe this random assignment is ethical because PN is an extremely limited resource, and all patients in the investigators network identified as high risk for not completing screening could not be contacted by the investigators navigators in a short period of time. Thus, the investigators will randomly assign access to PN during the study period, and then allow all participants to be navigated after the study period is over. As a result, all overdue, high risk patients will be referred for PN, but the timing of the referral will be randomly assigned. In this study, the investigators objectives are to improve the algorithm to automatically identify patients who are more likely to benefit from PN (Specific Aim 1), and to evaluate the clinical impact of PN in a randomized controlled trial within the MGPC-PBRN (Specific Aim 2). Investigators will also survey all patients identified by the TopCare algorithm to assess their overall satisfaction with healthcare to determine whether PN impacts satisfaction with healthcare (Specific Aim 3).
Revising and improving the current 'high risk' algorithm to automatically identify patients who may be helped by PN in Specific Aim 1 will help us to most effectively utilize limited PN resources. The current algorithm utilizes information about patient age, number of overdue tests, primary language, and no-show visit history. The investigators will investigate adding patient registration information about insurance and education status to better identify patients at high risk for not completing screening.
In Specific Aim 2, investigators will randomize eligible patients from the MGPC-PBRN primary care practices to either Arm 1 - TopCare with PN: Patients identified as at high risk for not completing screening by the automated algorithm will be assigned to a PN list for contact to help schedule and complete screening (breast, cervical, and colon), or Arm 2 - TopCare without PN: These patients will benefit from the standard features of the TopCare system, including automated identification of overdue patients, patient reminder letters, and referral to a scheduling delegate. All high risk patients in this arm will be eligible for PN after the study period is over.
- Conditions
- Patient Compliance
- Being tested
- Patient Navigation
- Keywords
- cancer screening, patient navigation
- Medical subject headings
- Patient Compliance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Patient NavigationBehavioural
Navigators utilized TopCare to track participants, reach out to them in their own language, and provide intense outreach to help them complete cancer screening.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Navigation Intervention | Experimental | Participants randomized to the intervention arm were transferred to a navigator roster within the TopCare application for the 8-month study period. Navigators utilized TopCare to track these participants, reach out to them in their own language, and provide intense outreach to help them complete cancer screening. Receives: Behavioral: Patient Navigation |
| Standard of Care - No Intervention | No intervention | Participants randomized to the control arm received usual care within TopCare, which meant that clinicians and staff could elect to send the participant a reminder letter about their overdue cancer screening exams, reach out to schedule overdue exams, or document appropriate reasons for deferral or exclusion. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percentage of Cancer Screening Tests Completed - Intention to Treat
The primary outcome was the overall cancer screening test completion rate over the follow-up period for each eligible patient, with all eligible cancers combined in intention to treat analyses. For example, a patient who was eligible for a total of 3 screening tests at a given time could have a completion rate of 0% (none of the 3 tests completed) 33%, 67%, or 100% (all 3 tests completed). By assessing each patient's completion rate over the 8-month follow-up period, the average completion rate over time was estimated from the area under the curve. We also calculated the completion rate for each individual cancer as the percentage of time screening was up to date among eligible patients during follow-up.
Measured: 8 months
Percentage of Cancer Screening Tests Completed - As Treated
The primary outcome was the average cancer screening test completion rate over the follow-up period for each eligible patient, with all eligible cancers combined in as treated analyses - excluding patients who either left the network or died during follow-up. The cancer screening test completion rate for each subject was calculated daily, then averaged across the 8-month study period. On any given day, the screening test completion rate was calculated as the number of tests completed divided by the number of eligible tests.
Measured: 8 Months
Secondary outcomes (2)
Percentage of Patients Completing Any Cancer Screening Test (Intention to Treat)
The percentage of patients completing any cancer screening during follow-up among those who were eligible and overdue for at least one cancer screening at baseline in intention to treat analyses, as the percentage of patients completing each type of cancer screening among those who were eligible and overdue at baseline in intention to treat analyses.
Measured: 8 Months
Percentage of Patients Completing Any Cancer Screening Test (As Treated)
The percentage of patients completing any cancer screening during follow-up among those who were eligible and overdue for at least one cancer screening at baseline in intention to treat analyses, as the percentage of patients completing each type of cancer screening among those who were eligible and overdue at baseline, removing patients who left our primary care network or who died during follow-up from both intervention and control arms, and also removed patients the navigators were not able to contact from the intervention arm.
Measured: 8 Months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Sep 2015 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2014
- Primary completionDec 2014
- Study completionDec 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (8)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Patient ComplianceStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Massachusetts General HospitalThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 1,612 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Massachusetts General Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Sanja Percac-Lima, MD, Massachusetts General Hospital
- Investigators
- Sanja Percac-Lima, MD, Principal investigator, Massachusetts General Hospital
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02553538
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2013P000473
- Status last verified
- Aug 2017
- First submitted
- 16 Sep 2015
- Last updated
- 26 Mar 2018
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, Tosteson AN, Zauber AG, Geiger AM, Kamineni A, Weaver DL, Tiro JA; Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens Consortium. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 May 7;107(6):djv120. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv120. Print 2015 Jun.
PubMed 25957378Berkowitz SA, Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Chang Y, Zai AH, He W, Grant RW, Atlas SJ. Building Equity Improvement into Quality Improvement: Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening as Part of Population Health Management. J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Jul;30(7):942-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3227-4. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
PubMed 25678378Zai AH, Kim S, Kamis A, Hung K, Ronquillo JG, Chueh HC, Atlas SJ. Applying operations research to optimize a novel population management system for cancer screening. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Feb;21(e1):e129-35. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001681. Epub 2013 Sep 16.
PubMed 24043318Atlas SJ, Zai AH, Ashburner JM, Chang Y, Percac-Lima S, Levy DE, Chueh HC, Grant RW. Non-visit-based cancer screening using a novel population management system. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;27(4):474-85. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.04.130319.
PubMed 25002002Percac-Lima S, Lopez L, Ashburner JM, Green AR, Atlas SJ. The longitudinal impact of patient navigation on equity in colorectal cancer screening in a large primary care network. Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;120(13):2025-31. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28682. Epub 2014 Apr 1.
PubMed 24691564Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Bond B, Oo SA, Atlas SJ. Decreasing disparities in breast cancer screening in refugee women using culturally tailored patient navigation. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Nov;28(11):1463-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2491-4. Epub 2013 May 18.
PubMed 23686510Percac-Lima S, Grant RW, Green AR, Ashburner JM, Gamba G, Oo S, Richter JM, Atlas SJ. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0864-x.
PubMed 19067085Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Zai AH, Chang Y, Oo SA, Guimaraes E, Atlas SJ. Patient Navigation for Comprehensive Cancer Screening in High-Risk Patients Using a Population-Based Health Information Technology System: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jul 1;176(7):930-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0841.
PubMed 27273602
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Mar 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Improving Comprehensive Cancer Screening Among Vulnerable Patients Using Patient Navigation as Part of a Population-Based Health IT System: A Randomized Control Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02553538
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2013P000473
- Conditions
- Patient Compliance
- Keywords
- cancer screening, patient navigation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 1,612 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Massachusetts General HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2014
- Primary completion
- Dec 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Dec 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Sep 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 26 Mar 2018
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to improve rates of cancer screening in vulnerable populations. Most cancer PN programs are located in community health centers and focus on a single cancer. The investigators will evaluate the impact of PN program on breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer screening in vulnerable patients receiving care in a large, academic, primary care network using a population-based IT system.
Detailed description
It is important to note that the TopCare system is currently the standard of care in the MGPC-PBRN. As such, this proposal does not involve evaluating the TopCare system or the patients and providers using it. Rather, the study evaluates the part of the TopCare system that involves the automated identification and referral to PN of patients at increased risk of screening non-adherence. All eligible patients overdue for cancer screening tests will receive usual care that includes a reminder letter and referral to a scheduling delegate for follow-up. Since the TopCare system represents usual care for patients with the MGH primary care network, no patient contact will occur solely for research purposes. The study will involve randomly assigning participants overdue for screening and identified as high risk for not completing screening to early or delayed PN. The investigators believe this random assignment is ethical because PN is an extremely limited resource, and all patients in the investigators network identified as high risk for not completing screening could not be contacted by the investigators navigators in a short period of time. Thus, the investigators will randomly assign access to PN during the study period, and then allow all participants to be navigated after the study period is over. As a result, all overdue, high risk patients will be referred for PN, but the timing of the referral will be randomly assigned. In this study, the investigators objectives are to improve the algorithm to automatically identify patients who are more likely to benefit from PN (Specific Aim 1), and to evaluate the clinical impact of PN in a randomized controlled trial within the MGPC-PBRN (Specific Aim 2). Investigators will also survey all patients identified by the TopCare algorithm to assess their overall satisfaction with healthcare to determine whether PN impacts satisfaction with healthcare (Specific Aim 3).
Revising and improving the current 'high risk' algorithm to automatically identify patients who may be helped by PN in Specific Aim 1 will help us to most effectively utilize limited PN resources. The current algorithm utilizes information about patient age, number of overdue tests, primary language, and no-show visit history. The investigators will investigate adding patient registration information about insurance and education status to better identify patients at high risk for not completing screening.
In Specific Aim 2, investigators will randomize eligible patients from the MGPC-PBRN primary care practices to either Arm 1 - TopCare with PN: Patients identified as at high risk for not completing screening by the automated algorithm will be assigned to a PN list for contact to help schedule and complete screening (breast, cervical, and colon), or Arm 2 - TopCare without PN: These patients will benefit from the standard features of the TopCare system, including automated identification of overdue patients, patient reminder letters, and referral to a scheduling delegate. All high risk patients in this arm will be eligible for PN after the study period is over.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patient Navigation Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Patient NavigationParticipants randomized to the intervention arm were transferred to a navigator roster within the TopCare application for the 8-month study period. Navigators utilized TopCare to track these participants, reach out to them in their own language, and provide intense outreach to help them complete cancer screening. |
| Standard of Care - No Intervention | No intervention | –Participants randomized to the control arm received usual care within TopCare, which meant that clinicians and staff could elect to send the participant a reminder letter about their overdue cancer screening exams, reach out to schedule overdue exams, or document appropriate reasons for deferral or exclusion. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 21 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Age 21-75
- Seen in MGPC Practices within the Past 3 Years
- Linked to a Specific PCP or to a Specific Practice
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- A PCP Outside of the MGPC-PBRN network
- Greater Than 75 Years Old
- MGH Chelsea Health Center Patients
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Patient NavigationNavigators utilized TopCare to track participants, reach out to them in their own language, and provide intense outreach to help them complete cancer screening. | Behavioural | Patient Navigation Intervention |
Primary outcome
Percentage of Cancer Screening Tests Completed - Intention to Treat
Time frame: 8 months
The primary outcome was the overall cancer screening test completion rate over the follow-up period for each eligible patient, with all eligible cancers combined in intention to treat analyses. For example, a patient who was eligible for a total of 3 screening tests at a given time could have a completion rate of 0% (none of the 3 tests completed) 33%, 67%, or 100% (all 3 tests completed). By assessing each patient's completion rate over the 8-month follow-up period, the average completion rate over time was estimated from the area under the curve. We also calculated the completion rate for each individual cancer as the percentage of time screening was up to date among eligible patients during follow-up.
Percentage of Cancer Screening Tests Completed - As Treated
Time frame: 8 Months
The primary outcome was the average cancer screening test completion rate over the follow-up period for each eligible patient, with all eligible cancers combined in as treated analyses - excluding patients who either left the network or died during follow-up. The cancer screening test completion rate for each subject was calculated daily, then averaged across the 8-month study period. On any given day, the screening test completion rate was calculated as the number of tests completed divided by the number of eligible tests.
2 secondary outcomes
Percentage of Patients Completing Any Cancer Screening Test (Intention to Treat)
Time frame: 8 Months
Percentage of Patients Completing Any Cancer Screening Test (As Treated)
Time frame: 8 Months
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Mar 2018.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 25957378Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, Tosteson AN, Zauber AG, Geiger AM, Kamineni A, Weaver DL, Tiro JA; Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens Consortium. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 May 7;107(6):djv120. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv120. Print 2015 Jun.
- Background: PubMed 25678378Berkowitz SA, Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Chang Y, Zai AH, He W, Grant RW, Atlas SJ. Building Equity Improvement into Quality Improvement: Reducing Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening as Part of Population Health Management. J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Jul;30(7):942-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3227-4. Epub 2015 Feb 13.
- Background: PubMed 24043318Zai AH, Kim S, Kamis A, Hung K, Ronquillo JG, Chueh HC, Atlas SJ. Applying operations research to optimize a novel population management system for cancer screening. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Feb;21(e1):e129-35. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001681. Epub 2013 Sep 16.
- Background: PubMed 25002002Atlas SJ, Zai AH, Ashburner JM, Chang Y, Percac-Lima S, Levy DE, Chueh HC, Grant RW. Non-visit-based cancer screening using a novel population management system. J Am Board Fam Med. 2014 Jul-Aug;27(4):474-85. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.04.130319.
- Background: PubMed 24691564Percac-Lima S, Lopez L, Ashburner JM, Green AR, Atlas SJ. The longitudinal impact of patient navigation on equity in colorectal cancer screening in a large primary care network. Cancer. 2014 Jul 1;120(13):2025-31. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28682. Epub 2014 Apr 1.
- Background: PubMed 23686510Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Bond B, Oo SA, Atlas SJ. Decreasing disparities in breast cancer screening in refugee women using culturally tailored patient navigation. J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Nov;28(11):1463-8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2491-4. Epub 2013 May 18.
- Background: PubMed 19067085Percac-Lima S, Grant RW, Green AR, Ashburner JM, Gamba G, Oo S, Richter JM, Atlas SJ. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0864-x.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27273602Percac-Lima S, Ashburner JM, Zai AH, Chang Y, Oo SA, Guimaraes E, Atlas SJ. Patient Navigation for Comprehensive Cancer Screening in High-Risk Patients Using a Population-Based Health Information Technology System: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Jul 1;176(7):930-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0841.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Patient Compliance
Not yet recruiting
The AYA Oncology Self-care Movement
Acute Lymphobkastic Leukemia, Medication Adherence
Active, not recruiting
Leveraging Technology to Improve Medication Adherence in Youth With Kidney or Liver Transplant
Transplant;Failure,Kidney, Transplant; Failure, Liver
Recruiting
At-home Breast Oncology Care Delivered With E-health Solutions
Patient Engagement, Patient Activation
Recruiting
Improving Adherence to Chronic Disease Medication Regimens Among Patients With Recently Diagnosed Cancer
Cancer
Recruiting
Designing a Large Language Model Architecture for Shared Decision Making and Informed Intentions
Shared Decision Making, Health Literacy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Sanja Percac-Lima, MD principal investigator
Massachusetts General Hospital
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Patient Navigation in people with Patient Compliance, run by Massachusetts General Hospital.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Mar 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 26 Mar 2018). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percentage of Cancer Screening Tests Completed - Intention to Treat (time frame: 8 months). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02553538, which also lists 8 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Mar 2018.