Evidence Hub

Patient Navigation to Improve Colonoscopy Completion Following an Abnormal Stool-test Result, A Randomized Controlled Trial

Gloria D. Coronado, A. Petrik, Jamie H. Thompson, Michael C. Leo, Matthew T Slaughter, P. Gautom, S. A. Hussain, Leslie Mosso et al.

Annals of Internal Medicine, 2025

985 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background Patient navigation is a recommended practice of the Community Guide for Preventive Services; little is known about whether patient navigation improves colonoscopy completion for adults who have received an abnormal stool test result. Objective To determine whether patient navigation delivered to individuals with an abnormal stool test result increased follow-up colonoscopy completion (primary) at 1 year. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting A federally qualified health center (n = 32 clinics) in Washington State. Patients Individuals aged 50-75 with an abnormal fecal test result in the prior month. Interventions A six-topic, phone-based patient navigation program delivered by bilingual (English and Spanish) clinical staff. Measurements Receipt of follow-up colonoscopy at 1 year (primary); time to colonoscopy receipt; and program effectiveness by patient characteristics, including patients’ probability of obtaining a colonoscopy without navigation, derived using health record data (secondary). Results Of 985 individuals enrolled (mean age, 61 [SD, 6.8] years; 170 [18%] had Spanish language preference listed in the medical record), 967 were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (479 in patient navigation; 488 in usual care). Receipt of follow-up colonoscopy was higher in the patient navigation group than in the usual care group (55.1% vs 42.1%; risk difference, 13.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.5 to 19.4 percentage points). The intervention…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 985 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free