Costs of planning and implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can improve health outcomes, but screening rates remain low across the US. Mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an effective way to increase CRC screening rates, but is still underutilized. In particular, cost of FIT has not been explored in relation to practice characteristics, FIT selection, and screening outreach approaches.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey drawing from prior validated measures to 252 primary care practices to assess characteristics and context that could affect the implementation of direct mail fecal testing programs, including the cost, source of test, and types of FIT used. We analyzed the range of costs for the tests, and identified practice and test procurement factors. We examined the distributions of practice characteristics for FIT use and costs answers using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We used Pearson’s chi-squared test of association and interpreted a low p-value (e.g. < 0.05) as evidence of association between a given practice characteristic and knowing the cost of FIT or fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

Results

Among the 84 viable practice survey responses, more than 10 different types of FIT/FOBTs were in use; 76% of practices used one of the five most common FIT types. Only 40 practices (48%) provided information on FIT costs. Thirteen (32%) of these practices received the tests for free while 27 (68%) paid for their tests; median reported cost of a FIT was $3.04, with a range from $0.83 to $6.41 per test. Costs were not statistically significantly different by FIT type. However, practices who received FITs from manufacturer’s vendors were more likely to know the cost (p = 0.0002) and, if known, report a higher cost (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that most practices without lab or health system supplied FITs are spending more to procure tests. Cost of FIT may impact the willingness of practices to distribute FITs through population outreach strategies, such as mailed FIT. Differences in the ability to obtain FIT tests in a cost-effective manner could have consequences for implementation of outreach programs that address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07576-4.

Program Components and Results From an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Using Annual Fecal Immunochemical Testing

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Programmatic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening increases uptake, but the design and resources utilized for such models are not well known. We characterized program components and participation at each step in a large program that used mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with opportunistic colonoscopy.

METHODS

Mixed-methods with site visits and retrospective cohort analysis of 51-75-year-old adults during 2017 in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated health system.

RESULTS

Among 1,023,415 screening-eligible individuals, 405,963 (40%) were up to date with screening at baseline, and 507,401 of the 617,452 not up-to-date were mailed a FIT kit. Of the entire cohort (n = 1,023,415), 206,481 (20%) completed FIT within 28 days of mailing, another 61,644 (6%) after a robocall at week 4, and 40,438 others (4%) after a mailed reminder letter at week 6. There were over 800,000 medical record screening alerts generated and about 295,000 FIT kits distributed during patient office visits. About 100,000 FIT kits were ordered during direct-to-patient calls by medical assistants and 111,377 people (11%) completed FIT outside of the automated outreach period. Another 13,560 (1.3%) completed a colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood test unrelated to FIT. Cumulatively, 839,463 (82%) of those eligible were up to date with screening at the end of the year and 12,091 of 14,450 patients (83.7%) with positive FIT had diagnostic colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The >82% screening participation achieved in this program resulted from a combination of prior endoscopy (40%), large initial response to mailed FIT kits (20%), followed by smaller responses to automated reminders (10%) and personal contact (12%).

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

Role of an Implementation Economics Analysis in Providing the Evidence Base for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening

Purpose and Objectives

Since 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has funded organizations across the United States to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) to detect early CRC or precancerous polyps that can be treated to avoid disease progression and death. The objective of this study was to describe how findings from economic evaluation approaches of a subset of these awardees and their implementation sites (n = 9) can drive decision making and improve program implementation and diffusion.

Intervention Approach

We described the framework for the implementation economics evaluation used since 2016 for the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Learning Collaborative.

Evaluation Methods

We compared CRC interventions implemented across health systems, changes in screening uptake, and the incremental cost per person of implementing an intervention. We also analyzed data on how implementation costs changed over time for a CRC program that conducted interventions in a series of rounds.

Results

Implementation of the interventions, which included provider and patient reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and incentives, resulted in increases in screening uptake ranging from 4.9 to 26.7 percentage points. Across the health systems, the incremental cost per person screened ranged from $18.76 to $144.55. One awardee’s costs decreased because of a reduction in intervention development and start-up costs.

Implications for Public Health

Health systems, CRCCP awardees, and CDC can use these findings for quality improvement activities, incorporation of information into trainings and support activities, and future program design.

Projecting total costs and health consequences of increasing mt-sDNA utilization for colorectal cancer screening from the payer and integrated delivery network perspectives

Aims: To evaluate total costs and health consequences of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and expanded use of multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) from the perspectives of Integrated Delivery Networks (IDNs) and payers in the United States.Materials and methods: We developed a budget impact and cost-consequence model that simulates CRC screening for eligible 50- to 75-year-old adults. A status quo scenario and an increased mt-sDNA scenario were modeled. The status quo includes the current screening mix of colonoscopy (83%), FIT (11%), and mt-sDNA (6%) modalities. The increased mt-sDNA scenario increases mt-sDNA utilization to 28% over 10 years. Costs for both the IDN and the payer perspectives incorporated diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies, adverse events (AEs), and CRC treatment. The IDN perspective included screening program costs, composed of direct nonmedical (e.g. patient navigation) and indirect (e.g. administration) costs. It was assumed that IDNs do not incur the costs for stool-based screening tests or bowel preparation for colonoscopies.Results: In a population of one million covered lives, the 10-year incremental cost savings incurred by increasing mt-sDNA utilization was $16.2 M for the IDN and $3.3 M for the payer. The incremental savings per-person-per-month were $0.14 and $0.03 for the IDN and payer, respectively. For both perspectives, increased diagnostic colonoscopy costs were offset by reductions in screening colonoscopies, surveillance colonoscopies, and AEs. Extending screening eligibility to 45- to 75-year-olds slightly decreased the overall cost savings.Limitations: The natural history of CRC was not simulated; however, many of the utilized parameters were extracted from highly vetted natural history models or published literature. Direct nonmedical and indirect costs for CRC screening programs are applied on a per-person-per modality basis, whereas in reality some of these costs may be fixed.Conclusions: Increased mt-sDNA utilization leads to fewer colonoscopies, less AEs, and lower overall costs for both IDNs and payers, reducing overall screening program costs and increasing the number of cancers detected while maintaining screening adherence rates over 10 years.

Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing worldwide. CRC has high mortality when detected at advanced stages, yet it is also highly preventable. Given the difficulties in implementing major lifestyle changes or widespread primary prevention strategies to decrease CRC risk, screening is the most powerful public health tool to reduce mortality. Screening methods are effective but have limitations. Furthermore, many screen-eligible people remain unscreened. We discuss established and emerging screening methods, and potential strategies to address current limitations in CRC screening. A quantum step in CRC prevention might come with the development of new screening strategies, but great gains can be made by deploying the available CRC screening modalities in ways that optimize outcomes while making judicious use of resources.

Cost-Effectiveness and National Effects of Initiating Colorectal Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Persons at Age 45 Years Instead of 50 Years

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The American Cancer Society has recommended initiating colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at age 45 years instead of 50 years. We estimated the cost effectiveness and national effects of adopting this recommendation.

METHODS

We compared screening strategies and alternative resource allocations in a validated Markov model. We based national projections on screening participation rates by age and census data.

RESULTS

Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 years in 1000 persons averted 4 CRCs and 2 CRC deaths, gained 14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost $33,900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies. These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 currently unscreened 55-year-old persons or 342 currently unscreened 65-year-old persons, through age 75 years. These alternatives averted 13-14 CRC cases and 6-7 CRC deaths and gained 27-28 discounted QALYs while saving $163,700-$445,800. Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from a fecal immunochemical test yielded greater benefits and savings. Initiation of fecal immunochemical testing at age 45 years instead of 50 years cost $7700/QALY gained. Shifting current age-specific screening rates to 5 years earlier could avert 29,400 CRC cases and 11,100 CRC deaths over the next 5 years but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion. Improving screening rates to 80% in persons who are 50-75 years old would avert nearly 3-fold more CRC deaths at one third the incremental cost.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model analysis, we found that starting CRC screening at age 45 years is likely to be cost effective. However, greater benefit, at lower cost, could be achieved by increasing participation rates for unscreened older and higher-risk persons.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs

Introduction

We developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned.

Methods

We developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009–2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not.

Results

CDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT.

Conclusion

A web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center

BACKGROUND

This report details the cost effectiveness of a non-nurse patient navigation (PN) program that was implemented at the University of Chicago Medical Center to increase colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

The authors investigated the impact of the PN intervention by collecting process measures. Individuals who received navigation were compared with a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. In addition, a previously validated data-collection instrument was tailored and used to collect all costs related to developing, implementing, and administering the program; and the incremental cost per patient successfully navigated (the cost of the intervention divided by the change in the number who complete screening) was calculated.

RESULTS

The screening colonoscopy completion rate was 85.1% among those who were selected to receive PN compared with 74.3% when no navigation was implemented. With navigation, the proportion of no-shows was 8.2% compared with 15.4% of a historic cohort of non-navigated patients. Because the perceived risk of noncompletion was greater among those who received PN (previous no-show or cancellation, poor bowel preparation) than that in the historic cohort, a scenario analysis was performed. Assuming no-show rates between 0% and 50% and using a navigated rate of 85%, the total incremental program cost per patient successfully navigated ranged from $148 to $359, whereas the incremental intervention-only implementation cost ranged from $88 to $215.

CONCLUSIONS

The current findings indicate that non-nurse PN can increase colonoscopy completion, and this can be achieved at a minimal incremental cost for an insured population at an urban academic medical center.

Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) mailing programs are effective for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objectives of the current study were to assess the magnitude of uptake that could be achieved with a mailed FIT program in a federally qualified health center and whether such a program can be implemented at a reasonable cost to support sustainability.

METHODS

The Washington State Department of Health's partner HealthPoint implemented a direct-mail FIT program at 9 medical clinics, along with a follow-up reminder letter and automated telephone calls to those not up-to-date with recommended screening. Supplemental outreach events at selected medical clinics and a 50th birthday card screening reminder program also were implemented. The authors collected and analyzed process, effectiveness, and cost measures and conducted a systematic assessment of the short-term cost effectiveness of the interventions.

RESULTS

Overall, 5178 FIT kits were mailed with 4009 follow-up reminder letters, and 8454 automated reminder telephone calls were made over 12 months. In total, 1607 FIT kits were returned within 3 months of the end of the implementation period: an overall return rate of 31% for the mailed FIT program. The average total intervention cost per FIT kit returned was $39.81, and the intervention implementation cost per kit returned was $18.76.

CONCLUSIONS

The mailed FIT intervention improved CRC screening uptake among HealthPoint's patient population. This intervention was implemented for less than $40 per individual successfully screened. The findings and lessons learned can assist other clinics that serve disadvantaged populations to increase their CRC screening adherence.

Costs of colorectal cancer screening provision in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program: Comparisons of colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT based screening

We assess annual costs of screening provision activities implemented by 23 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees and report differences in costs between colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based screening programs. We analysed annual cost data for the first three years of the CRCCP (July 2009-June 2011) for each screening provision activity and categorized them into clinical and non-clinical screening provision activities. The largest cost components for both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based programs were screening and diagnostic services, program management, and data collection and tracking. During the first 3 years of the CRCCP, the average annual clinical cost for screening and diagnostic services per person served was $1150 for colonoscopy programs, compared to $304 for FIT/FOBT-based programs. Overall, FOBT/FIT-based programs appear to have slightly higher non-clinical costs per person served (average $1018; median $838) than colonoscopy programs (average $980; median $686). Colonoscopy-based CRCCP programs have higher clinical costs than FOBT/FIT-based programs during the 3-year study timeframe (translating into fewer people screened). Non-clinical costs for both approaches are similar and substantial. Future studies of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening initiatives should consider both clinical and non-clinical costs.

Recommendations From the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network on the Evaluation of the Cost of Screening Programs

Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the fourth leading cause of death from cancer and the incidence is projected to increase. Many countries are exploring the introduction of organized screening programs, but there is limited information on the resources required and guidance for cost-effective implementation. To facilitate the generating of the economics evidence base for program implementation, we collected and analyzed detailed program cost data from 5 European members of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network. The cost per person screened estimates, often used to compare across programs as an overall measure, varied significantly across the programs. In addition, there were substantial differences in the programmatic and clinical cost incurred, even when the same type of screening test was used. Based on these findings, several recommendations are provided to enhance the underlying methodology and validity of the comparative economic assessments. The recommendations include the need for detailed activity-based cost information, the use of a comprehensive set of effectiveness measures to adequately capture differences between programs, and the incorporation of data from multiple programs in cost-effectiveness models to increase generalizability. Economic evaluation of real-world colorectal cancer-screening programs is essential to derive valuable insights to improve program operations and ensure optimal use of available resources.

Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of a Multitarget Stool DNA Test to Screen for Colorectal Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We developed a model to determine whether a multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test that detects colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyps with higher sensitivity and lower specificity, but at a higher cost, than the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used in screening.

METHODS

We used a Markov model of average-risk CRC screening to compare the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of screening with the MT-sDNA test vs FIT or colonoscopy. We accounted for the complex longitudinal participation patterns observed in organized programs vs opportunistic screening, as well as organized programs' patient support costs and differential payment rates by commercial insurers vs Medicare.

RESULTS

With optimal adherence, yearly FIT and colonoscopy every 10 years were dominant (more effective and less costly) than MT-sDNA every 3 years. Compared with successful organized FIT programs (50% consistent and 27% intermittent participation; patient support costs, $153/cycle), the patient support program for the MT-sDNA test would need 68% of subjects to participate consistently and 32% to participate intermittently every 3 years, or the MT-sDNA test would need to cost 60% less than in the base case ($260 commercial payment and $197 Medicare payment), for the MT-sDNA test to be preferred over FIT at a threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Compared with opportunistic yearly FIT screening (15% consistent and 30% intermittent participation), performing the MT-sDNA test every 3 years would cost less than $100,000 per QALY gained if the MT-sDNA test achieved a participation rate more than 1.7-fold that of FIT. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. Assuming equal participation across strategies and a threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained, FIT was preferred in 99.3% of iterations in Monte Carlo simulation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Markov model, we found FIT and colonoscopy to be more effective and less costly than the MT-sDNA test when participation rates were equal for all strategies. For the MT-sDNA test to be cost effective, the patient support program included in its cost would need to achieve substantially higher participation rates than those of FIT, whether in organized programs or under the opportunistic screening setting that is more common in the United States than in the rest of the world.

Population-based programs for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Screening to detect polyps or cancer at an early stage has been shown to produce better outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Programs with a population-based approach can reach a large majority of the eligible population and can offer cost-effective interventions with the potential benefit of maximizing early cancer detection and prevention using a complete follow-up plan. The purpose of this review was to summarize the key features of population-based programs to increase CRC screening in the United States. A search was conducted in the SCOPUS, OvidSP, and PubMed databases. The authors selected published reports of population-based programs that met at least 5 of the 6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for cancer prevention and were known to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Interventions at the level of individual practices were not included in this review. IARC cancer prevention criteria served as a framework to assess the effective processes and elements of a population-based program. Eight programs were included in this review. Half of the programs met all IARC criteria, and all programs led to improvements in screening rates. The rate of colonoscopy after a positive stool test was heterogeneous among programs. Different population-based strategies were used to promote these screening programs, including system-based, provider-based, patient-based, and media-based strategies. Treatment of identified cancer cases was not included explicitly in 4 programs but was offered through routine medical care. Evidence-based methods for promoting CRC screening at a population level can guide the development of future approaches in health care prevention. The key elements of a successful population-based approach include adherence to the 6 IARC criteria and 4 additional elements (an identified external funding source, a structured policy for positive fecal occult blood test results and confirmed cancer cases, outreach activities for recruitment and patient education, and an established rescreening process).

What is the effect of reduced street lighting on crime and road traffic injuries at night? A mixed-methods study

Background

Some local authorities have reduced street lighting at night to save energy, but little is known about impacts on public health or about public concerns about impacts on well-being.

Aim

To evaluate the effect of reduced street lighting on crime and road traffic injuries.

Design

A mixed-methods study comprising a rapid appraisal, a controlled interrupted time series analysis and a cost–benefit analysis (CBA).

Setting

England and Wales.

Target population

Residents and workers in eight case study areas; road traffic casualties and victims of crime.

Interventions evaluated

Switch-off (i.e. lights permanently turned off), part-night lighting (e.g. lights switched off between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.), dimming lights and white lights/light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

Outcomes

Public views about implications on well-being; road traffic injury data (STATS19:http://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-accidents-safety-data) obtained for the period 2000–13; crime data (Police.uk:data.police.uk) obtained for the period December 2010–December 2013. Detailed crime data were obtained from one police force for a methodological study of the spatial level at which Police.uk data are valid for analysis.

Statistical methods

Road traffic collisions were analysed at street segment level. Regression models were used to estimate changes in daytime and night-time collision rates associated with lighting interventions. The ratio of night-time and daytime changes was considered the best estimate of change in night-time collisions following each lighting intervention. Police.uk crime data were found to be reliable when analysed at middle super output area (MSOA) level. For crime, the analysis used the proportion of total km of road in each MSOA with each lighting intervention. Regression models controlled for yearly and monthly trends and were fitted in each geographical region and police force. Effect estimates were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

Public concerns centred on personal security, road safety, crime, fear of crime, sleep quality and being able to see the night sky. Street lighting reductions went largely unnoticed or had only marginal impacts on well-being, but for a minority of people switch-off and part-night lighting elicited concerns about fear of the dark, modernity and local governance. Street lighting data were obtained from 62 local authorities. There was no evidence that reduced street lighting was associated with road traffic collisions at night. There was significant heterogeneity in the estimated effects on crime at police force level. Overall, there was no evidence that reduced street lighting was associated with crime. There was weak evidence for a reduction in crime associated with dimming [rate ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.02] and white light (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03). The CBA suggests that part-night lighting may represent a net benefit to local authorities.

Limitations

The study did not account for the impacts of other safety/crime prevention initiatives (e.g. improved road markings; closed-circuit television), and so associations may be partly attributable to these initiatives. The CBA was unable to include potentially important impacts such as fear of crime and reduced mobility.

Conclusion

This study found little evidence of harmful effects of switch-off, part-night lighting, dimming or changes to white light/LEDs on levels of road traffic collisions or crime in England and Wales. However, the public were also concerned about other health outcomes. Research is needed to understand how lighting affects opportunities for crime prevention and how these vary by context. Research is needed also on other public health impacts of light at night.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018

BACKGROUND

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable, a national coalition of public, private, and voluntary organizations, has recently announced an initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States to 80% by 2018. The authors evaluated the potential public health benefits of achieving this goal.

METHODS

The authors simulated the 1980 through 2030 United States population of individuals aged 50 to 100 years using microsimulation modeling. Test-specific historical screening rates were based on National Health Interview Survey data for 1987 through 2013. The effects of increasing screening rates from approximately 58% in 2013 to 80% in 2018 were compared to a scenario in which the screening rate remained approximately constant. The outcomes were cancer incidence and mortality rates and numbers of CRC cases and deaths during short-term follow-up (2013-2020) and extended follow-up (2013-2030).

RESULTS

Increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2018 would reduce CRC incidence rates by 17% and mortality rates by 19% during short-term follow-up and by 22% and 33%, respectively, during extended follow-up. These reductions would amount to a total of 277,000 averted new cancers and 203,000 averted CRC deaths from 2013 through 2030.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the goal of increasing the uptake of CRC screening in the United States to 80% by 2018 may have a considerable public health impact by averting approximately 280,000 new cancer cases and 200,000 cancer deaths within <20 years. Cancer 2015;121:2281–2285. © 2015 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Clinical costs of colorectal cancer screening in 5 federally funded demonstration programs

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of this report assessed the clinical costs incurred at each of the 5 participating sites during the demonstration period.

METHODS

By using data on payments to providers by each of the 5 CRCSDP sites, the authors estimated costs for specific clinical services and overall clinical costs for each of the 2 CRC screening methods used by the sites: colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

RESULTS

Among CRCSDP clients who were at average risk for CRC and for whom complete cost data were available, 2131 were screened by FOBT, and 1888 were screened by colonoscopy. The total average clinical cost per individual screened by FOBT (including costs for screening, diagnosis, initial surveillance, office visits, and associated clinical services averaged across all individuals who received screening FOBT) ranged from $48 in Nebraska to $149 in Greater Seattle. This compared with an average clinical cost per individual for all services related to the colonoscopy screening ranging from $654 in St. Louis to $1600 in Baltimore City.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in how sites contracted with providers and in the services provided through CRCSDP affected the cost of clinical services and the complexity of collecting cost data. Health officials may find these data useful in program planning and budgeting.

Developmental milestones across the programmatic life cycle: implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program

BACKGROUND

In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models.

METHODS

A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle.

RESULTS

Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits.

Recruiting patients into the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: strategies and challenges across 5 sites

BACKGROUND

In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services.

METHODS

The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation.

RESULTS

During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education.

CONCLUSIONS

Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society.

Moving forward: using the experience of the CDCs' Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program to guide future colorectal cancer programming efforts

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established and supported a 4-year Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) from 2005 to 2009 for low-income, under- or uninsured men and women aged 50-64 at 5 sites in the United States.

METHODS

A multiple methods evaluation was conducted including 1) a longitudinal, comparative case study of program implementation, 2) the collection and analysis of client-level screening and diagnostic services outcome data, and 3) the collection and analysis of program- and patient-level cost data.

RESULTS

Several themes emerged from the results reported in the series of articles in this Supplement. These included the benefit of building on an existing infrastructure, strengths and weakness of both the 2 most frequently used screening tests (colonoscopy and fecal occult blood tests), variability in costs of maintaining this screening program, and the importance of measuring the quality of screening tests. Population-level evaluation questions could not be answered because of the small size of the participating population and the limited time frame of the evaluation. The comprehensive evaluation of the program determined overall feasibility of this effort.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical lessons learned through the implementation and evaluation of the CDC's CRCSDP led to the development of a larger population-based program, the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).

Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations.

METHODS

The authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases.

RESULTS

Several themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening.