Randomized, controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to improve cancer screening rates in a safety-net primary care practice

Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening at Community-Based Primary Care Clinics in San Francisco

CONTEXT

Adult colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) can lower disease incidence and mortality. However, widespread implementation is inconsistent, especially in the public sector. While specific interventions to increase CRCS have been identified, firsthand accounts of CRCS improvement efforts using multiple techniques in public sector settings are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

A program evaluation was conducted to assess the effect of implementing a culture of continuous quality improvement (QI) on CRCS practices and prevalence. A multipronged incremental effort over more than a decade to increase CRCS at the San Francisco Department of Public Health is described.

SETTING

Community-based primary care clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Departmental activities and 5 clinics providing full-scope primary care to CRCS-eligible adults who participated in departmental activities and outreach interventions were assessed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Departmental and clinic-specific CRCS activities and prevalence.

RESULTS

Efforts included departmental prioritization; data-driven QI incorporating routine data sharing (monthly reports and data walls); departmental and clinic-specific QI committees; panel management (a team approach to generation of eligibility lists prior to scheduled visits, routinely offering screening during appointments or mailing test kits for patients without appointments); and departmental mail and phone outreach events. Screening ranged from 36.6% to 54.4% in 2010; in 2013, it ranged from 43.6% to 70.2%. Increases occurred consistently over that time in 3 of the 5 clinics and ranged from 1.1% to 14.5%; decreases occurred during 2 intervals in 2 clinics and ranged from 2.3% to 4.3%.

CONCLUSION

CRCS prevalence can be markedly improved in the public sector with a data-driven panel management approach supported by departmental and clinic-specific QI committees and group outreach events. Continued prioritization of and focus on CRCS is required to ensure long-term success. Even small increases will result in avoidable morbidity and mortality associated with this highly preventable disease.

Canadian cancer screening disparities: a recent historical perspective

Across Canada, introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening, followed by mammography for breast cancer screening and, more recently, the fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening, has contributed to a reduction in cancer mortality. However, another contribution of screening has been disparities in cancer mortality between certain populations. Here, we explore the disparities associated with breast and cervical cancer screening and preliminary data concerning disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Although some disparities in screening utilization have been successfully reduced over time (for example, mammography and Pap test screening in rural and remote populations), screening utilization data for other populations (for example, low-income groups) clearly indicate that disparities have existed and continue to exist across Canada. Organized screening programs in Canada have been able to successfully engage 80% of women for regular cervical cancer screening and 70% of women for regular mammography screening, but of the women who remain to be reached or engaged in regular screening, those with the least resources, those who are the most isolated, and those who are least culturally integrated into Canadian society as a whole are over-represented. Population differences are also observed for utilization of colorectal cancer screening services. The research literature on interventions to promote screening utilization provides some evidence about what can be done to increase participation in organized screening by vulnerable populations. Adaption and adoption of evidence-based screening promotion interventions can increase the utilization of available screening services by populations that have experienced the greatest burden of disease with the least access to screening services.

Get screened: a randomized trial of the incremental benefits of reminders, recall, and outreach on cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Rates of breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are particularly low among poor and minority patients. Multifaceted interventions have been shown to improve cancer-screening rates, yet the relative impact of the specific components of these interventions has not been assessed. Identifying the specific components necessary to improve cancer-screening rates is critical to tailor interventions in resource limited environments.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative impact of various components of the reminder, recall, and outreach (RRO) model on BC and CRC screening rates within a safety net practice.

DESIGN

Pragmatic randomized trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women aged 50-74 years past due for CRC screen and women aged 40-74 years past due for BC screening.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomized 1,008 patients to one of four groups: (1) reminder letter; (2) letter and automated telephone message (Letter + Autodial); (3) letter, automated telephone message, and point of service prompt (Letter + Autodial + Prompt); or (4) letter and personal telephone call (Letter + Personal Call).

MAIN MEASURES

Documentation of mammography or colorectal cancer screening at 52 weeks following randomization.

KEY RESULTS

Compared to a reminder letter alone, Letter + Personal Call was more effective at improving screening rates for BC (17.8 % vs. 27.5 %; AOR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.2-4.0) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 21.5 %; AOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.1-3.9). Compared to letter alone, a Letter + Autodial + Prompt was also more effective at improving rates of BC screening (17.8 % vs. 28.2 %; AOR 2.1, 95 % CI 1.1-3.7) and CRC screening (12.2 % vs. 19.6 %; AOR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.0-3.7). Letter + Autodial was not more effective than a letter alone at improving screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a personal telephone call or a patient-specific provider prompt were both more effective at improving mammogram and CRC screening rates compared to a reminder letter alone. The use of automated telephone calls, however, did not provide any incremental benefit to a reminder letter alone.