BMJ Open (Apr 2024)

Chronic disease prevention and screening outcomes for patients with and without financial difficulty: a secondary analysis of the BETTER WISE cluster randomised controlled trial

  • Eva Grunfeld,
  • Kris Aubrey-Bassler,
  • Rahim Moineddin,
  • Denise Campbell-Scherer,
  • Melissa Shea-Budgell,
  • Kerry McBrien,
  • Aisha K Lofters,
  • Christopher Meaney,
  • Andrew David Pinto,
  • Tracy Wong,
  • Donna P Manca,
  • Dhruvesh Patel,
  • Carolina Fernandes

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078938
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Objective Building on Existing Tools To improvE chronic disease pRevention and screening in primary care Wellness of cancer survIvorS and patiEnts (BETTER WISE) was designed to assess the effectiveness of a cancer and chronic disease prevention and screening (CCDPS) programme. Here, we compare outcomes in participants living with and without financial difficulty.Design Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting Patients of 59 physicians from 13 clinics enrolled between September 2018 and August 2019.Participants 596 of 1005 trial participants who responded to a financial difficulty screening question at enrolment.Intervention 1-hour CCDPS visit versus usual care.Outcome measures Eligibility for a possible 24 CCDPS actions was assessed at baseline and the primary outcome was the percentage of eligible items that were completed at 12-month follow-up. We also compared the change in response to the financial difficulty screening question between baseline and follow-up.Results 55 of 265 participants (20.7%) in the control group and 69 of 331 participants (20.8%) in the intervention group reported living with financial difficulty. The primary outcome was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%) for intervention and 23% (95% CI 21% to 26%) for control participants without financial difficulty (p=0.01). Intervention and control participants with financial difficulty scored 28% (95% CI 24% to 32%) and 32% (95% CI 27% to 38%), respectively (p=0.14). In participants who responded to the financial difficulty question at both time points (n=302), there was a net decrease in the percentage of participants who reported financial difficulty between baseline (21%) and follow-up (12%, p<0.001) which was similar in the control and intervention groups. The response rate to this question was only 51% at follow-up.Conclusion The BETTER intervention improved uptake of CCDPS manoeuvres in participants without financial difficulty, but not in those living with financial difficulty. Improving CCDPS for people living with financial difficulty may require a different clinical approach or that social determinants be addressed concurrently with clinical and lifestyle needs or both.Trial registration number ISRCTN21333761.