Screening versus routine practice in detection of atrial fibrillation in patients aged 65 or over: cluster randomised controlled trial. A randomized trial of office-based screening for common problems in older persons. A randomized trial of two print interventions to increase colon cancer screening among first-degree relatives. A controlled trial of multiphasic screening in middle-age: results of the South-East London Screening Study. The South-East London Screening Study Group. Increasing women's compliance with opportunistic cervical cancer screening: a randomized trial. Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening. Screening older people for impaired vision in primary care: cluster randomised trial. A randomized trial of a screening, case finding, and referral system for older veterans in primary care. Telephone screening for hazardous drinking among injured patients seen in acute care clinics: feasibility study.
To assess whether screening improves the detection of atrial fibrillation (cluster randomisation) and to compare systematic and opportunistic screening.
                Multicentred cluster randomised controlled trial, with subsidiary trial embedded within the intervention arm.
                50 primary care centres in England, with further individual randomisation of patients in the intervention practices.
                14,802 patients aged 65 or over in 25 intervention and 25 control practices.
                Patients in intervention practices were randomly allocated to systematic screening (invitation for electrocardiography) or opportunistic screening (pulse taking and invitation for electrocardiography if the pulse was irregular). Screening took place over 12 months in each practice from October 2001 to February 2003. No active screening took place in control practices.
                Newly identified atrial fibrillation.
                The detection rate of new cases of atrial fibrillation was 1.63% a year in the intervention practices and 1.04% in control practices (difference 0.59%, 95% confidence interval 0.20% to 0.98%). Systematic and opportunistic screening detected similar numbers of new cases (1.62% v 1.64%, difference 0.02%, -0.5% to 0.5%).
                Active screening for atrial fibrillation detects additional cases over current practice. The preferred method of screening in patients aged 65 or over in primary care is opportunistic pulse taking with follow-up electrocardiography.
                Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN19633732 [controlled-trials.com]. To test the effectiveness of a 10-minute office-staff administered screen to evaluate malnutrition/weight loss, visual impairment, hearing loss, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, depression, physical limitations, and reduced leg mobility among older persons seen in office practice. This screen was coupled with clinical summaries to assist the physician in further evaluating and managing the screen-included problems.
                Twenty-six community-based office practices of internists and family physicians in Los Angeles were randomized to intervention or control groups. Two hundred and sixty-one patients aged > or = 70 years and seeing these physicians for a new visit or a physical examination participated in the study. At the enrollment visit intervention group patients were administered the screening measure and their physicians were given the pertinent clinical summaries. Outcome measures were detection of, and intervention for conditions screened, and health status 6 months after the intervention.
                Hearing loss was both more commonly detected (40% intervention versus 28% control) and further evaluated (29% versus 16%) by physicians in the intervention group (P < 0.05). No other differences in the frequency of problem detection or intervention were noted between groups. Six months after the intervention no differences were noted in health status between groups.
                A brief measure to screen for common conditions in older persons was associated with more frequent detection and follow-up assessment of hearing loss. Although the measure was well accepted by physicians and their staffs, it did not appear to affect detection and intervention in regard to the other screen-included conditions, or health status at 6 months. First-degree relatives (FDRs) of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) have a two- to threefold increased risk of developing the same disease. Tailored print interventions based on behavior change theories have demonstrated considerable promise in facilitating health-promoting behaviors. This study compared the impact of two mailed print interventions on CRC screening outcomes among FDRs.
                This randomized trial compared effects of two mailed print interventions--one tailored and one nontailored--on participation in CRC screening among FDRs of CRC survivors. Data collected via phone interviews from 140 FDRs at baseline, 1 week post-intervention, and 3 months post-intervention.
                At 3 months, both the tailored and nontailored interventions yielded modest but statistically insignificant increases in adherence to any CRC screening test (14% vs. 21%, respectively; p=0.30). While there were no main effects for tailored versus nontailored interventions, there were significant interactions that showed that the tailored print intervention had significantly greater effects on forward stage movement for CRC screening depending on stage of adoption at baseline, race, and objective CRC risk. Receipt of the tailored intervention was 2.5 times more likely to move baseline precontemplators and contemplators forward in stage of adoption for colonoscopy (95% CI: 1.10-5.68) and was three times more likely to move Caucasians forward in stage of adoption for FOBT (95% CI: 1.00-9.07). In addition, the tailored intervention was 7.7 times more likely to move people at average risk forward in stage of adoption for colonoscopy (95% CI: 1.25-47.75).
                The tailored print intervention was more effective at moving Caucasians, those in precontemplation and contemplation at baseline, and those at average risk forward in their stage of adoption for CRC screening.
                Both tailored and nontailored print interventions showed moderate effects for increasing CRC screening participation. Tailored print interventions may be more effective for certain subgroups. The results of a controlled trial of multiphasic screening in general practice are presented. In 1967, 7,229 individuals aged between 40 and 64 years were randomly allocated into either a Screening or Control group. The Screening group were invited to attend two screening sessions held about two years apart, while the Control group continued to receive conventional medical care. Both groups were then invited to undergo a health survey in 1972-73 which revealed no significant differences in morbidity between the two groups. Careful follow-up permitted detailed Screening-Control comparisons of various outcome measures--consultation and hospital admission rates, certified sickness absence from work, and mortality. Nine years after the initial screening, no significant differences were found between the two groups in any of the outcome measures. It is estimated that a similar screening programme for the entire middle-aged UK population would cost 142 pounds million at 1976 prices. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of two interventions designed to increase opportunistic cervical cancer screening. We designed a randomized trial of two interventions additional to usual care. We recruited 17 male general practitioners selected at random from the inner metropolitan region of Sydney, Australia. The patients were 202 women, between 20 and 65 years of age, eligible for a Pap smear. We allocated minimal and maximal interactional interventions to obtain consent for a Pap smear. Our main outcome measure was women's having a Pap smear during the consultation or within one month. We also measured acceptability of interventions to practitioners and women. These were our results: minimal: 55% of women had a Pap smear; maximal: 67% of women had a Pap smear; total when both approaches are combined: 61%. We conclude that brief advice is as effective as maximal persuasion in increasing women's compliance with opportunistic screening in routine consultations. Both interventions were acceptable to women. Practitioners preferred the minimal intervention. We demonstrate opportunistic screening is an effective and acceptable way to encourage women at risk to have a Pap smear. To evaluate an innovative approach to continuing medical education, an outreach intervention designed to improve performance rates of breast cancer screening through implementation of office systems in community primary care practices.
                Randomized, controlled trial with primary care practices assigned to either the intervention group or control group, with the practice as the unit of analysis.
                Twenty mostly rural counties in North Carolina.
                Physicians and staff of 62 randomly selected family medicine and general internal medicine practices, primarily fee-for-service, half group practices and half solo practitioners.
                Physician investigators and facilitators met with practice physicians and staff over a period of 12 to 18 months to provide feedback on breast cancer screening performance, and to assist these primary care practices in developing office systems tailored to increase breast cancer screening.
                Physician questionnaires were obtained at baseline and follow-up to assess the presence of five indicators of an office system. Three of the five indicators of office systems increased significantly more in intervention practices than in control practices, but the mean number of indicators in intervention practices at followup was only 2.8 out of 5. Cross-sectional reviews of randomly chosen medical records of eligible women patients aged 50 years and over were done at baseline (n = 2,887) and follow-up (n = 2,874) to determine whether clinical breast examinations and mammography, were performed. Results for mammography were recorded in two ways, mention of the test in the visit note and actual report of the test in the medical record. These reviews showed an increase from 39% to 51% in mention of mammography in intervention practices, compared with an increase from 41% to 44% in control practices (p = .01). There was no significant difference, however, between the two groups in change in mammograms reported (intervention group increased from 28% to 32.7%; control group increased from 30.6% to 34.0%, p = .56). There was a nonsignificant trend (p = .06) toward a greater increase in performance of clinical breast examination in intervention versus control practices.
                A moderately intensive outreach intervention to increase rates of breast cancer screening through the development of office systems was modestly successful in increasing indicators of office systems and in documenting mention of mammography, but had little impact on actual performance of breast cancer screening. At follow-up, few practices had a complete office system for breast cancer screening. Outreach approaches to assist primary care practices implement office systems are promising but need further development. To determine the effectiveness of screening for visual impairment in people aged 75 or over as part of a multidimensional screening programme.
                Cluster randomised trial.
                General practices in the United Kingdom participating in the MRC trial of assessment and management of older people in the community.
                4340 people aged 75 years or over randomly sampled from 20 general practices, excluding people resident in hospitals or nursing homes.
                Visual acuity testing and referral to eye services for people with visual impairment. Universal screening (assessment and visual acuity testing) was compared with targeted screening, in which only participants with a range of health related problems were offered an assessment that included acuity screening.
                Proportion of people with visual acuity less than 6/18 in either eye; mean composite score of 25 item version of the National Eye Institute visual function questionnaire.
                Three to five years after screening, the relative risk of having visual acuity < 6/18 in either eye, comparing universal with targeted screening, was 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.36; P = 0.58). The mean composite score of the visual function questionnaire was 85.6 in the targeted screening group and 86.0 in the universal group (difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -1.7 to 2.5, P = 0.69).
                Including a vision screening component by a practice nurse in a pragmatic trial of multidimensional screening for older people did not lead to improved visual outcomes. To test whether a system of screening, assessment, referral, and follow-up provided within primary care for high-risk older outpatients improves recognition of geriatric conditions and healthcare outcomes.
                Controlled clinical trial with 3-year follow-up; intervention versus control group allocation based on practice group assignment.
                Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ambulatory care center.
                Seven hundred ninety-two community-dwelling patients aged 65 and older identified by postal screening survey.
                The intervention combined a structured telephone geriatric assessment by a physician assistant, individualized referrals and recommendations, selected referral to outpatient geriatric assessment, and ongoing telephone case management.
                Main outcomes were VA medical record evidence of recognition and evaluation of target geriatric conditions (depression, cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, falls, functional impairment), functional status (Functional Status Questionnaire, FSQ), and hospitalization (VA databases and self-reported non-VA usage).
                Intervention participants were more likely to have target conditions recognized, evaluated, and referred to specialized services within 12 months of enrollment, although there were no significant differences in FSQ scores or acute hospitalization between intervention and control groups at 1, 2, or 3 years follow-up. Subgroup analyses suggested improvements in depression symptoms and functional impairment at 1-year follow-up in intervention participants with these problems at baseline, but these findings were not evident at later follow-up.
                The intervention increased recognition and evaluation of target geriatric conditions but did not improve functional status or decrease hospitalization. Innovative screening methods can identify older people in need of geriatric services, but achieving measurable improvement in functional status or hospitalization rates will likely require a more-intensive intervention than a program involving primarily unsolicited referrals and short-term consultations. We evaluated the effectiveness of telephoning injured patients after discharge, compared with contacting them in the clinic during the acute care visit, for screening for hazardous drinking and eliciting willingness to participate in a lifestyle intervention trial.
                We conducted a quasi-randomized controlled trial among acutely injured adult patients in trauma and acute care clinics, assigning telephone and clinic screening strategies systematically by week. During telephone weeks, we mailed study information to patients identified from computerized records, then telephoned them. During clinic weeks, researchers recruited patients awaiting care. We screened for hazardous drinking using the AUDIT-C (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-C). We examined the proportion of all injured adult patients who were screened, the proportion of screened patients with hazardous drinking (AUDIT-C score >or=4), and the proportion willing to participate in a (hypothetical) lifestyle intervention trial. Differences were analysed with non-linear mixed models using generalized estimating equations, controlling for age, sex, and facility. Levers and barriers to screening were explored through structured interviews with research staff.
                We enrolled 29% (469/1,609) of all injured adult patients and 76% of injured patients contacted and found to be eligible. Of screened patients, 23.1% screened positive for hazardous drinking. Telephone and clinic contact were equally effective for screening patients (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.59-1.87), identifying hazardous drinking (OR=0.97; 95% CI = 0.54-1.74), and eliciting willingness to participate in an intervention trial (OR=1.49; 95% CI = 0.97-2.30). Clinic site modified results: telephone was more effective than clinic contact for screening urban patients (OR=1.99; 95% CI = 1.36-2.93), but less effective for screening suburban patients (OR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.69-0.71). Barriers to clinic screening included lack of clinic staff support, time constraints, and difficulty recruiting elderly or acutely distressed patients. Barriers to telephone screening included erroneous contact information and failure to answer the telephone.
                Telephone screening is a feasible and efficient method for screening moderately injured adult patients for hazardous drinking, but characteristics of the clinical site (including personnel) influence its effectiveness. Trauma and acute care clinics are likely to be fruitful sites for identification of patients with hazardous drinking, whether for enrollment into brief intervention trials or treatment programmes.
Systematic and opportunistic screening for AF increase the rate of detection of new cases compared with routine practice. While both approaches have a comparable effect on the overall AF diagnosis rate, the cost of systematic screening is significantly more than that of opportunistic screening from the perspective of the health service provider. The lack of studies investigating the effect of screening in other health systems and younger age groups means that caution needs to be exercised in relation to the transferability of these results beyond the setting and population in which the included study was conducted.
Additional research is needed to examine the effectiveness of alternative screening strategies and to investigate the effect of the intervention on the risk of stroke for screened versus non-screened populations.