Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy: A randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support

Barbara J. Turner, Mark Weiner, Sheila D. Berry, Karen Lillie, Kevin Fosnocht, Christopher S. Hollenbeak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75% of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS: Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N=70) and brochure group (N=66) differed by 11% (68.6% vs 57.6%, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95%CI=1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95%CI=0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95%CI=0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR=0.37, 95%CI=0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR=2.30, 95%CI=1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)58-63
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of general internal medicine
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2008

Fingerprint

Pamphlets
Colonoscopy
Confidence Intervals
Odds Ratio
Peer Group
Primary Health Care
Mentoring
Electronic Health Records
Random Allocation
Information Systems
Appointments and Schedules
Demography
Delivery of Health Care
Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Turner, Barbara J. ; Weiner, Mark ; Berry, Sheila D. ; Lillie, Karen ; Fosnocht, Kevin ; Hollenbeak, Christopher S. / Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy : A randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support. In: Journal of general internal medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 23, No. 1. pp. 58-63.
@article{45136a7799c844c5b598a1ab0c98746f,
title = "Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy: A randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75{\%} of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS: Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N=70) and brochure group (N=66) differed by 11{\%} (68.6{\%} vs 57.6{\%}, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI]=0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95{\%}CI=1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95{\%}CI=0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95{\%}CI=0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR=0.37, 95{\%}CI=0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR=2.30, 95{\%}CI=1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.",
author = "Turner, {Barbara J.} and Mark Weiner and Berry, {Sheila D.} and Karen Lillie and Kevin Fosnocht and Hollenbeak, {Christopher S.}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-007-0445-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "58--63",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "1",

}

Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy : A randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support. / Turner, Barbara J.; Weiner, Mark; Berry, Sheila D.; Lillie, Karen; Fosnocht, Kevin; Hollenbeak, Christopher S.

In: Journal of general internal medicine, Vol. 23, No. 1, 01.01.2008, p. 58-63.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Overcoming poor attendance to first scheduled colonoscopy

T2 - A randomized trial of peer coach or brochure support

AU - Turner, Barbara J.

AU - Weiner, Mark

AU - Berry, Sheila D.

AU - Lillie, Karen

AU - Fosnocht, Kevin

AU - Hollenbeak, Christopher S.

PY - 2008/1/1

Y1 - 2008/1/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75% of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS: Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N=70) and brochure group (N=66) differed by 11% (68.6% vs 57.6%, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95%CI=1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95%CI=0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95%CI=0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR=0.37, 95%CI=0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR=2.30, 95%CI=1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Among patients unlikely to attend a scheduled colonoscopy, we examined the impact of peer coach versus educational brochure support and compared these with concurrent patients who did not receive support. METHODS: From health system data, we identified 275 consecutive patients aged >50 who kept <75% of visits to 4 primary care practices and scheduled for a first colonoscopy from February 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006. Using block randomization, we assigned consenting patients to a phone call by a peer coach trained to address barriers to attendance or to a mailed colonoscopy brochure. Study data came from electronic medical records. Odds ratios of colonoscopy attendance were adjusted for demographic, clinical, and health care factors. RESULTS: Colonoscopy attendance by the peer coach group (N=70) and brochure group (N=66) differed by 11% (68.6% vs 57.6%, respectively). Compared with the brochure group, the peer coach group had over twofold greater adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of attendance (2.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.99-4.63) as did 49 patients who met the prespecified criteria for needing no support (2.68, 95%CI=1.05-6.82) but the AORs did not differ significantly for 41 patients who declined support (0.61, 95%CI=0.25-1.45) and 49 patients who could not be contacted (0.85, 95%CI=0.36-2.02). Attendance was less likely for black versus white race (AOR=0.37, 95%CI=0.19-0.72) but more likely for patients with high versus low primary care visit adherence (AOR=2.30, 95%CI=1.04-5.07). CONCLUSION: For patients who often fail to keep appointments, peer coach support appears to promote colonoscopy attendance more than an educational brochure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=37749032092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=37749032092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-007-0445-4

DO - 10.1007/s11606-007-0445-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 18030540

AN - SCOPUS:37749032092

VL - 23

SP - 58

EP - 63

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 1

ER -