Table 2. Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes at 6 Months for Intervention Participants According to Intervention Exposure, Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening, North Carolina, 2011^a .

Process Variable	Reach	Any Screening During Studyb	P Valuec
	n (%)	% (95% Confidence Intervalc)
Eligible intervention participants	163 (100)	12.9 (NA)	(NA)
Completed the survey
Yes	56 (34.4)	23.2 (16.6–29.8)	.004
No	107 (65.6)	7.5 (0-15.8)
Watched decision aid (survey completers onlyd)
Some or all	21 (50.0)	28.6 (10.4–46.7)	.31
No	21 (50.0)	19.0 (3.0–35.0)
Spoke with patient navigator
Yes	45 (27.6)	22.2 (11.7–32.7)	<.001
No	118 (72.4)	9.3 (3.8–14.8)
Had follow-up call (among those who spoke with patient navigator)
Yes	26 (57.8)	30.8 (12.1–49.4)	.12
No	19 (42.2)	6.6 (0-27.6)
Had physician visit during study period (among patients with chart reviews onlye)
Yes	118 (84.3)	14.4 (8.1–20.7)	.10
No	23 (16.3)	4.3 (0.0–12.0)

Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.

^a Table includes only participants who did not refuse and were not up-to-date for screening at baseline on the basis of self-report, Medicaid claims data, or chart review data (n = 163). For this analysis we looked at only the 163 (out of the initial 242) intervention participants who met all eligibility criteria based on both chart review and Medicaid claims data. We excluded 27 people who opted out of the study, 31 people who self-reported as ineligible, and 21 people who were determined to be retroactively ineligible because their chart review indicated that they had had been up-to-date with CRC screening at baseline.

^b Includes evidence or screening during the intervention period found in chart reviews or Medicaid claims data.

^c P values and 95% confidence intervals are calculated by using χ² test and account for clustering by practice

^d Excludes people who answered the survey, but skipped the decision aid questions (n = 14).

^e Excludes 2 patients for whom data on visits was missing on their chart review (n=141)