Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders

Barriers to and opportunities for advancing racial equity in cervical cancer screening in the United States

BACKGROUND

In the United States (U.S.), racially minoritized people have higher rates of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality compared to white individuals as a result of racialized structural, social, economic, and health care inequities. However, cervical cancer screening guidelines are based on studies of predominately white individuals and do not substantially discuss or address racialized cervical cancer inequities and their social determinants, including racism.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with health care providers (N = 30) and key informants with expertise in health equity (N = 18). We utilized semi-structured interview guides that addressed providers' views and experiences delivering cervical cancer screening to racially minoritized individuals and key informants' recommendations for advancing racial equity in the development and implementation of cervical cancer screening guidelines. Interviews were analyzed using a template style thematic analysis approach involving deductive and inductive coding, memo writing, and matrix analysis for theme development.

RESULTS

Most health care providers adopted a universal, one-size-fits-all approach to cervical cancer screening with the stated goal of ensuring racial equality. Despite frequently acknowledging the existence of racialized cervical cancer inequities, few providers recognized the role of social inequities in influencing them, and none discussed the impact of racism. In contrast, key informants overwhelmingly recommended that providers adopt an approach to cervical cancer screening and follow-up care that recognizes the role of racism in shaping racialized cervical cancer and related social inequities, is developed in partnership with racially minoritized communities, and involves person-centered, structurally-competent, and trauma-informed practices that address racially minoritized peoples' unique lived experiences in historical and social context. This racism-conscious approach is not to be confused with race-based medicine, which is an essentialist and racist approach to health care that treats race as a biological variable rather than as a social and political construct.

CONCLUSIONS

Developers and implementers of cervical cancer screening guidelines should explicitly recognize and address the impact of racism on cervical cancer screening, follow-up care, and outcomes, meaningfully incorporate racially minoritized communities' perspectives and experiences, and facilitate provider- and institutional-level practices that foster racial equity in cervical cancer.

Examining the Sustainability of Core Capacity and Evidence-Based Interventions for FIT-Based CRC Screening: California Colorectal Cancer Control Program

OBJECTIVES

We examined the extent to which funded satellite clinics could sustain the California Colon Cancer Control Program (C4P) strategies implemented in health systems to increase uptake of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the absence of future C4P funds.

INTRODUCTION

Seven health systems consisting of 38 satellite clinics participated in C4P to examine the sustainability of the program in the absence future Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding.

METHODS

Quantitative and qualitative methods with a close and open-ended survey approach, and a prospective cohort design were used to examine the sustainability of the C4P in health systems.

RESULTS

A total of 61% of satellite clinics could not sustain funding stability. Only 26% could sustain funding stability. About, 71%, 26%, and 21% of the satellite clinics could sustain the small media platform, patient navigation services, and community health workers (CHWs), respectively. All the satellite clinics sustained the provider reminder system and professional development. Roughly, 71% and 42% of funded satellite clinics could not sustain the patient navigators and CHWs, respectively. The satellite clinics that could sustain funding stability, sustained patient navigation services and CHWs. Health systems that could not sustain funding stability, could not sustain patient navigation services and CHWs. Qualitatively, the need to support uninsured priority populations, health educators, patient navigators, care coordination activities, outreach services, and provision of enhanced services emerged. The need to support enhanced quality measures, expansion of funding, Medi-Cal Public Hospital Redesign and Incentive coverage, health plan, community linkages, resource sharing, and best practices specifically on CRC screening emerged. Themes such as automated reminder, limited personalized care delivery and capacity, transportation barriers, staff salary, expansion of care through patient navigation, and culturally appropriate media campaign also emerged.

CONCLUSION

Overall, to address sustainability barriers, funding stability should be maintained in the health systems.

Understanding perceptions of the public and key stakeholders toward a localised cancer screening promotion campaign

The aim of this study was to explore perceptions of members of the public and key stakeholders of a localised campaign to increase engagement with cervical cancer screening. Whilst numerous interventions have been trialled to increase engagement with cancer screening, the evidence for their effectiveness is somewhat mixed. In addition, few studies have explored the perceptions of members of the public targeted by such campaigns nor the perceptions of healthcare professionals who may be involved in delivering such campaigns in the United Kingdom. Members of the public who had potentially been exposed to the campaign in the North-East of England were approached to take part in individual interviews whilst stakeholders were invited to take part in a focus group. A total of 25 participants (13 members of the public, 12 stakeholders) took part. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using applied thematic analysis. Four themes were identified, two of which were cross-cutting (barriers to screening and factors promoting screening), with one theme identified as specific to the public interviews (knowledge of and attitudes toward awareness campaigns) and one theme specific to the focus group (keeping campaigns relevant. Awareness of the localised campaign was limited; however, when made aware, participants were mostly positive towards the approach, although mixed responses were noted in relation to financial incentives. Members of the public and stakeholders identified some common barriers to screening although differed in their perceptions of promotional factors. This study highlights the importance of multiple strategies to promote cervical screening as one size fits all approach may limit engagement.

Racial disparities in the screening mammography continuum within a heterogeneous health care system

BACKGROUND

Decreased mammography drives breast cancer disparities. Black women have lower rates of mammography completion than White women, and this contributes to disparities in outcomes. Points of disparity along the continuum for screening mammography remain underresearched.

METHODS

The authors compared mammography referrals for Black and White women aged 40-74 years at a heterogeneous academic medical center. Completion of steps of the screening mammography continuum was compared between Black and White women within two age cohorts: 40-49 and 50-74 years. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between race and mammogram completion.

RESULTS

Among 26,476 women, 3090 (12%) were Black, and 23,386 (88%) were White. Among Black women aged 50-74 years who were due for mammography, 40% had referrals, 39% were scheduled, and 21% completed mammography; the corresponding values for White women were 42%, 41%, and 27%, respectively. Similar differences in referral outcomes were noted for women aged 40-49 years, although Black women had lower rates of provider-initiated referrals (9% vs. 13%). Adjusted analyses for those aged 40-49 and 50-74 years demonstrated an association between Black race and lower rates of mammography completion (odds ratio [OR] for 40-49 years, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.95; p = .02; OR for 50-74 years, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; p = .02). In multivariable analyses, noncommercial insurance and higher comorbidity were associated with lower rates of mammography. Provider-initiated referral was positively correlated to mammogram completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Black race was associated with 15%-26% lower mammography completion (adjusted). Both groups experienced the highest attrition after scheduling mammograms, although attrition was more precipitous for Black women. These findings have implications for future interventions, including increasing provider-initiated referrals and decreasing barriers to attending scheduled mammograms.

When should electronic medical records reminders for cancer screening stop?-Results from a national physician survey

BACKGROUND

Many older adults are screened for breast and colorectal cancers beyond guideline recommended thresholds. Electronic medical record (EMR) reminders are commonly used to prompt cancer screening. Behavioral economics theory suggests that changing the default settings for these reminders can be effective to reduce over-screening. We examined physician perspectives about acceptable thresholds for stopping EMR cancer screening reminders.

METHODS

In a national survey of 1200 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gynecologists randomly selected from the AMA Masterfile, we asked physicians to choose whether EMR reminders for cancer screening should stop based on a list of criteria that included age, life expectancy, specific serious illnesses, and functional limitations. Physicians could choose multiple responses. PCPs were randomized to questions about breast or colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

A total of 592 physicians participated (adjusted response rate 54.1%). 54.6% chose age and 71.8% chose life expectancy as criteria for stopping EMR reminders; only 30.6% chose functional limitations. Regarding age thresholds, 52.4% chose ages ≤75, 42.0% chose a threshold between 75 and 85, 5.6% would not stop reminders even at age 85. Regarding life expectancy thresholds, 32.0% chose ≥10 years, 53.1% chose a threshold between 5 and 9 years, 14.9% would not stop reminders even when life expectancy is <5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that many physicians would continue EMR reminders for cancer screening even in light of older age, limited life expectancy, and functional limitations. This may reflect reluctance to stop cancer screening and/or reluctance to stop EMR reminders so that physicians can retain control to decide for individual patients, for example, to assess patient preference and ability to tolerate treatment. There was consensus for stopping EMR reminders at ages 85+ and <5-year life expectancy. Interventions that seek to reduce over-screening by suppressing EMR reminders may be important for these groups but may have limited physician buy-in outside these thresholds.

Effects of Non-monetary Incentives in Physician Groups-A Systematic Review

Objectives: Healthcare expenditures in western countries have been rising for many years. This leads many countries to develop and test new reimbursement systems. A systematic review about monetary incentives in group settings indicated that a sole focus on monetary aspects does not necessarily result in better care at lower costs. Hence, this systematic review aims to describe the effects of non- monetary incentives in physician groups. Methods: We searched the databases MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EconLit, and ISI Web of Science. Grey literature search, reference lists, and authors' personal collection provided additional sources. Results: Overall, we included 36 studies. We identified 4 categories of interventions related to non-monetary incentives. In particular, the category of decision support achieved promising results. However, design features vary among different decision support systems. To enable effective design, we provide an overview of the features applied by the studies included. Conclusions: Not every type of non-monetary incentive has a positive impact on quality of care in physician group settings. Thus, creating awareness among decision-makers regarding this matter and extending research on this topic can contribute to preventing implementation of ineffective incentives, and consequently, allocate resources towards tools that add value.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Letter and Telephone Reminders in Promoting the Use of Specific Health Guidance in an At-Risk Population for Metabolic Syndrome in Japan: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Japan has introduced a nationwide lifestyle intervention program (specific health guidance) for people aged 40-74 years. Medical insurers apply a reminder system to improve their utilization rates. This study examined the effectiveness of two methods of reminders (mailed letters and telephone calls) in a randomized controlled trial. Subscribers to National Health Insurance in Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, who were eligible for specific health guidance in 2021, were recruited. A total of 1377 people who met the criteria of having or being at risk of developing metabolic syndrome (male: 77.9%, mean age: 63.1 ± 10.0 years) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a "no reminder" group, a "letter reminder" group, or a "telephone reminder" group. The utilization rates of specific health guidance were not significantly different between the three groups (10.5%, 15.3%, and 13.7%, respectively). However, in the case of the telephone reminder group, a subgroup analysis showed that the utilization rate was significantly higher among participants who received the reminder than those who did not answer the calls. Although the effectiveness of a telephone reminder might be underestimated, this study suggests that neither method impacted the utilization rates of specific health guidance among the population at risk of metabolic syndrome.

A Scoping Literature Review on Evidence-Based Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening

Previous reviews of strategies to increase cervical cancer screening are more than 10 years old, the U.S. continues to fall short of the Healthy People 2030 cervical cancer screening goal, and guidelines were revised in 2018, therefore an updated review of the existing literature is needed. We conducted a scoping review using electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid Medline that included publication dates between 2012 and 2021 to answer the question, "Which strategies implemented in U.S. primary care settings have been most successful in increasing rates of cervical cancer screening since the 2012 US Preventative Services Task Force cervical cancer screening guidelines were published?" We mapped findings to pre-specified implementation strategy categories. After initially identifying 399 articles, we excluded 350 due to duplicates or not meeting review criteria, leaving 49 articles for full review. We excluded 37 of these during full-text review and identified 2 additional articles from the manual search of reference lists for a total of 14 studies for abstraction. Eleven articles reported on strategies resulting in increased cervical cancer screening, and 3 did not. Clinic workflow re-design strategies showed the greatest promise in improving cervical cancer screening rates, education strategies for patients had mixed results, and quality management strategies were not effective. These findings suggest clinical workflow re-structures and patient education strategies can increase cervical cancer screening in primary care settings. Results are particularly important in settings that care for underserved populations, as these settings may need additional implementation strategies to decrease cervical cancer screening disparities.

Patient Perspectives on Longitudinal Adherence to Lung Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) has mortality benefits for eligible participants; however, studies demonstrate low adherence to follow-up LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are patients' perspectives on barriers and facilitators to adherence to annual LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty participants enrolled in the University of Washington/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance LCS program completed a demographic questionnaire and a semistructured interview based on the Tailored Implementation in Chronic Diseases framework to determine attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to longitudinal LCS. Interviews were coded using principles of framework analysis to identify and compare themes between adherent and nonadherent participants.

RESULTS

The 40 participants underwent initial LCS in 2017 with negative results. Seventeen were adherent to follow-up annual LCS, whereas 23 were not. Seven overall themes emerged from qualitative analysis, which are summarized as follows: (1) screening experiences are positive and participants have positive attitudes toward screening; (2) provider recommendation is a motivator and key facilitator for most patients; (3) many patients are influenced by personal factors and symptoms and do not understand the importance of asymptomatic screening; (4) common barriers to longitudinal screening include cost, insurance coverage, accessibility, and other medical conditions; (5) patients have variable preferences about how they receive their screening results, and many have residual questions about their results and future screening; (6) reminders are an important facilitator of annual screening; and (7) most patients think a navigator would be beneficial to the screening process, with different aspects of navigation thought to be most helpful. Those who were not adherent more commonly reported individual barriers to screening, competing health concerns, and less provider communication.

INTERPRETATION

Key facilitators (eg, patient reminders, provider recommendations) may improve long-term screening behavior, and a number of barriers to the screening process could be addressed through patient navigation.

Barriers to utilization of three colorectal cancer screening options - Data from a national survey

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the United States. A better understanding of existing barriers is critical for improving uptake of, and adherence to, CRC screening. Using data from a population-based panel survey, we examined barriers to utilization of three commonly used screening options (FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, and screening colonoscopy) and assessed differences by socio-demographic characteristics, healthcare access, and health status. Data were obtained from a questionnaire developed by the authors and implemented through a U.S. national panel survey conducted in November 2019. Among 5,097 invited panelists, 1,595 completed the survey (31.3%). Analyses were focused on individuals ages 50-75 at average risk for CRC. Results showed that among respondents who reported no prior CRC screening with FIT/gFOBT, mt-sDNA, or colonoscopy, the top barriers were lack of knowledge (FIT/gFOBT: 42.1%, mt-sDNA: 44.9%, colonoscopy: 34.7%), lack of provider recommendation (FIT/gFOBT: 32.1%, mt-sDNA: 27.3%, colonoscopy: 18.6%), and suboptimal access (FIT/gFOBT: 20.8%, mt-sDNA: 17.8%, colonoscopy: 26%). Among participants who had used one or two of the screening options, the top barriers to FIT/gFOBT and mt-sDNA were lack of provider recommendation (31.6% & 37.5%) and lack of knowledge (24.6% & 25.6%), while for colonoscopy top barriers were psychosocial barriers (31%) and lack of provider recommendation (22.7%). Differences by sex, race/ethnicity, income level, and health status were observed. Our research identified primary barriers to the utilization of three endorsed CRC screening options and differences by patient characteristics, highlighting the importance of improving CRC screening education and considering patient preferences in screening recommendations.

Clinical follow-up practices after cervical cancer screening by co-testing: A population-based study of adherence to U.S. guideline recommendations

Failure to follow-up women after abnormal cervical screening could lead to cervical cancers, yet little is known about adherence to recommended follow-up after abnormal co-testing [cytology and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing]. We documented clinical management following cervical screening by co-testing in a diverse population-based setting. A statewide surveillance program for cervical screening, diagnosis, and treatment was used to investigate all cytology, hrHPV and biopsy reports in the state of New Mexico from January 2015 through August 2019. Guideline-adherent follow-up after co-testing required 1) biopsy within 6 months for low-grade cytology if positive for hrHPV, for high-grade cytology irrespective of hrHPV, and for HPV 16/18 positive results irrespective of cytology and; 2) repeat co-testing within 18 months if cytology was negative and hrHPV test was positive (excluding types 16/18). Screening co-tests (2015-2017) for 164,522 women were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier curves, and pairwise comparisons between groups. Guideline adherence was highest when both cytology and hrHPV tests were abnormal, ranging from 61.7% to 80.3%. Guideline-adherent follow-up was lower for discordant results. Women with high-grade cytology were less likely to receive a timely biopsy when hrHPV-testing was negative (48.1%) versus positive (83.3%) (p < 0.001). Only 47.9% of women received biopsies following detection of HPV16/18 with normal cytology, and 30.8% received no follow-up within 18-months. Among women with hrHPV-positive normal cytology without evidence of HPV 16/18 infection, 51% received no follow-up within 18 months. Provider education and creation of robust recall systems may help ensure appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening results.

Acceptability, Utility, and Cost of a Mobile Health Cancer Screening Education Application for Training Primary Care Physicians in India

PURPOSE

Mobile health (mHealth)-based oncology education can be a powerful tool for providing cancer screening knowledge to physicians, as mobile technology is widely available and inexpensive. We developed a mobile application (M-OncoED) to educate physicians on cancer screening and tested the acceptability, utility, and cost of two different approaches to recruit physicians.

METHODS

M-OncoED was designed to perform pre- and postlearning assessments through the in-built quizzes; present case studies and educational materials for cervical, breast, and oral cancer screening; collect responses to interactive queries; document module completion; send reminders and alerts; and track user metrics, including number of sessions to complete each module and time spent per session. We tested two recruitment approaches: a broad-scale recruitment group, for which we relied on e-mails, messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp), and phone calls, and the targeted recruitment group, for which we conducted a face-to-face meeting for the initial invitation.

RESULTS

Overall, about 35% of those invited in the targeted group completed the course compared with about 3% in the broad-based recruitment group. The targeted recruitment approach was more cost-efficient ($55.33 vs. $109.43 per person). Cervical cancer screening knowledge increased by about 30 percentage points, and breast cancer screening knowledge increased by 10 percentage points. There was no change in knowledge for oral cancer scorings.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated the feasibility and utility of using an mHealth app to educate physicians. A more intensive hands-on recruitment approach is likely required to engage physicians to download and complete the app. Future studies should assess the impact of mHealth tools on physician behavior and patient outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Mobile health (mHealth)-based oncology education can be a powerful tool for providing cancer screening knowledge to physicians, as mobile technology is widely available and inexpensive. This study has demonstrated the feasibility and utility of using an mHealth app to educate physicians and illustrates the type of recruitment approach (face-to-face) that is likely required to incentivize physicians to download the app and complete the training.

Using a Frontline Staff Intervention to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening in a Large Academic Internal Medicine Clinic

BACKGROUND

Cervical cancer is the third most common malignancy affecting women. Screening with Papanicolaou (Pap) tests effectively identifies precancerous lesions and early-stage cervical cancer. While the nationwide rate of cervical cancer screening (CCS) is 84%, our urban general internal medicine (GIM) clinic population had a CCS rate of 70% in 2016.

OBJECTIVE

To improve our clinic's CCS rate to match or exceed the national average within 18 months by identifying barriers and testing solutions.

DESIGN

A quality improvement project led by a multidisciplinary group of healthcare providers.

PARTICIPANTS

Our GIM clinic includes 16 attending physicians, 116 resident physicians, and 20 medical assistants (MAs) with an insured and underserved patient population.

INTERVENTION

Phase 1 lasted 9 months and implemented CCS patient outreach, patient financial incentives, and clinic staff education. Phase 2 lasted 9 months and involved a workflow change in which MAs identified candidates for CCS during patient check-in. Feedback spanned the entire study period.

MAIN MEASURES

Our primary outcome was the number of Pap tests completed per month during the 2 study phases. Our secondary outcome was the clinic population's CCS rate for all eligible clinic patients.

KEY RESULTS

After interventions, the average number of monthly Pap tests increased from 35 to 56 in phase 1 and to 75 in phase 2. Of 385 patients contacted in phase 1, 283 scheduled a Pap test and 115 (41%) completed it. Compared to baseline, both interventions improved cervical cancer screening (phase 1 relative risk, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.64-2.10; P < 0.001; phase 2 relative risk, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.40-3.02; P < 0.001). Our clinic's CCS rate improved from 70% to 75% after the 18-month intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of CCS increased by 5% after a systematic 2-phase organizational intervention that empowered MAs to remind, identify, and prepare candidates during check-in for CCS.

Closing the Gap: Participatory Formative Evaluation to Reduce Cancer Screening Disparities among Patients with Limited English Proficiency

Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) have disproportionately lower rates of cancer screening than English-proficient patients. Given the multifactorial nature of screening disparities, strategies to improve screening rates must address barriers within and outside of the clinic setting. The objectives of this study were to understand local barriers from multiple stakeholder perspectives, to identify potential multilevel intervention approaches, and to mobilize community-engaged intervention decision making and planning. This participatory formative evaluation approach employed needs assessment and user engagement in order to enhance intervention usefulness and relevance. The study took place in several stages and involved clinic and community partners in a small metropolitan area of the Midwest USA. Interviews were conducted with LEP patients (n = 9) who had not completed three recommended screenings (breast, cervical, and colorectal), primary care providers (n = 5), medical interpreter (n = 5), and community members (n = 3). These highlighted multilevel barriers including limited patient understanding of preventive health, time and cost constraints, and variable roles of language interpreters. The literature was also reviewed to identify interventions used with similar populations. Findings from this review suggest that interventions are largely focused on single population groups or address single screening barriers. Finally, a community-academic summit (n = 48 participants) was held to review results and develop recommendations for community and clinic interventions. Findings from this study indicate that it is possible to engage a diverse group of stakeholders in strategies that are responsive to health care providers and patients, including LEP patients from heterogeneous backgrounds.

Understanding User Acceptance of Clinical Decision Support Systems to Promote Increased Cancer Screening Rates in a Primary Care Practice

OBJECTIVE

Clinical decision support systems (CDDSs) in the electronic medical record (EMR) have been implemented in primary care settings to identify patients due for cancer screening tests, while functioning as a real time reminder system. There is little known about primary care providers (PCPs) perspective or user acceptance of CDSS. The purpose of this study was to investigate primary care provider perceptions of utilizing CDSS alerts in the EMR to promote increased screening rates for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

An electronic survey was administered to PCPs in a Midwest Health Institution community internal medicine practice from September 25, 2019 through November 27, 2019.

RESULTS

Among 37 participants (9 NP/Pas and 28 MD/DOs), the NP/PA group was more likely to agree that alerts were helpful (50%; P-value = .0335) and the number of alerts (89%; P = .0227) in the EMR was appropriate. The NP/PA group also was more likely to find alerts straightforward to use (78%, P = .0239). Both groups agreed about feeling comfortable using the health maintenance alerts (MD/DO = 79%; NP/PA = 100%).

CONCLUSION

CDSSs can promote and facilitate ordering of cancer screening tests. The use of technology can promptly identify patients due for a test and act as a reminder to the PCP. PCPs identify these alerts to be a beneficial tool in the EMR when they do not interrupt workflow and provide value to patient care. More work is needed to identify factors that could optimize alerts to be even more helpful, particularly to MD/DO groups.

Social-life factors associated with participation in screening and further assessment of colorectal cancer: A nationwide ecological study in Japanese municipalities

The burden of colorectal cancer in developed countries is high, and it is a major public health concern in Japan. Improving the quality of evidence on colorectal cancer screening participation and further assessment participation rates is important to reduce this burden. This study examined the social-life factors that influence colorectal cancer screening programs in Japan, particularly the effects of the proportion of elderly people and social capital, using a municipality-level national database and existing health reports. Data from a national municipality-based study were analyzed to identify social-life factors associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening and further assessment. Administrative data on the Japanese municipal screening programs were drawn from the Report on Regional Public Health Services and Health Promotion Services 2017. Available data used as predictors of interest for all 1719 municipalities as of 2017 were from the national census, statistical reports on the land area by prefecture and municipality, municipal financial surveys, a survey of physicians, dentists and pharmacists, and other databases. The mean rate of participation in colorectal cancer screening was 13.8%, and that of further assessment was 73.6%. Multiple linear regression analyses of the two outcomes showed that the proportion of elderly people was most significantly positively associated with colorectal cancer screening programs (β = 0.51 for participation, β = 0.13 for further assessment participation), and the proportion of single-elderly-person households was most significantly negatively associated (β = −0.45 and −0.19, respectively). It is suggested that the health behaviors required for participation in colorectal cancer programs in Japanese elderly populations are greatly affected by family members.

•

The disease burden of colorectal cancer is increasing in developed countries.

•

An ecological study of the colorectal cancer screening program was conducted.

•

The proportion of elderly people was positively associated with the screening rates.

•

The single-elderly-person households was negatively associated with the screening rates.

Breast cancer screening adherence rates and barriers of implementation in ethnic, cultural and religious minorities: A systematic review

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. Adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines is frequently lower in racial, ethnic and cultural minority populations and is affected by potential inequities or barriers to screening that these minorities face. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to collect information from different minority groups worldwide, assess adherence to breast cancer screening and evaluate barriers or limitations causing non-adherence, which should facilitate the development of effective interventions. A search was conducted through PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were considered as eligible if they met the following criteria: i) Female patients; ii) breast cancer screening program implemented in the country; iii) minority groups; iv) asymptomatic; v) report written in Portuguese or English; vi) study published from 2015 onwards. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used for qualitative studies and the Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for cross-sectional studies. From the 348 initial articles, 86 were removed due to duplication and 19 were selected, analyzed and summarized, accordingly. Of the 19 studies included, 5.3% were classified as high quality, 52.6% as moderate to high and 42.1% as moderate. A total of 15 studies were cross-sectional and 4 were qualitative, collectively including 250,733 women. The rate of adherence to mammogram in different minorities was evaluated, obtaining a mean value of 49.7% in the last 2 years, and statistically significant barriers were selected and divided into sociodemographic; personal; ethnic, cultural and religious; and external factors. The characteristics of each population play a major role in the population's breast health practices. If the population, adherence rates, barriers and inequities are carefully studied, screening models may be customized and participation to breast cancer screening can be optimized, thereby reducing the high breast cancer-associated mortality.

Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users

BACKGROUND

Local authorities in England commission the NHS Health Check programme to invite everyone aged 40-74 years without pre-existing conditions for risk assessment and eventual intervention, if needed. However, the programme's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity impact remain uncertain.

AIM

To develop a validated open-access flexible web-based model that enables local commissioners to quantify the cost-effectiveness and potential for equitable population health gain of the NHS Health Check programme.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were as follows: (1) co-produce with stakeholders the desirable features of the user-friendly model; (2) update the evidence base to support model and scenario development; (3) further develop our computational model to allow for developments and changes to the NHS Health Check programme and the diseases it addresses; (4) assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity of alternative strategies for implementation to illustrate the use of the tool; and (5) propose a sustainability and implementation plan to deploy our user-friendly computational model at the local level.

DESIGN

Co-production workshops surveying the best-performing local authorities and a systematic literature review of strategies to increase uptake of screening programmes informed model use and development. We then co-produced the workHORSE (working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) model to estimate the health, economic and equity impact of different NHS Health Check programme implementations, using illustrative-use cases.

SETTING

Local authorities in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Stakeholders from local authorities, Public Health England, the NHS, the British Heart Foundation, academia and other organisations participated in the workshops. For the local authorities survey, we invited 16 of the best-performing local authorities in England.

INTERVENTIONS

The user interface allows users to vary key parameters that represent programme activities (i.e. invitation, uptake, prescriptions and referrals). Scenarios can be compared with each other.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease cases and case-years prevented or postponed, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefit and change in slope index of inequality.

RESULTS

The survey of best-performing local authorities revealed a diversity of effective approaches to maximise the coverage and uptake of NHS Health Check programme, with no distinct 'best buy'. The umbrella literature review identified a range of effective single interventions. However, these generally need to be combined to maximally improve uptake and health gains. A validated dynamic, stochastic microsimulation model, built on robust epidemiology, enabled service options analysis. Analyses of three contrasting illustrative cases estimated the health, economic and equity impact of optimising the Health Checks, and the added value of obtaining detailed local data. Optimising the programme in Liverpool can become cost-effective and equitable, but simply changing the invitation method will require other programme changes to improve its performance. Detailed data inputs can benefit local analysis.

LIMITATIONS

Although the approach is extremely flexible, it is complex and requires substantial amounts of data, alongside expertise to both maintain and run.

CONCLUSIONS

Our project showed that the workHORSE model could be used to estimate the health, economic and equity impact comprehensively at local authority level. It has the potential for further development as a commissioning tool and to stimulate broader discussions on the role of these tools in real-world decision-making.

FUTURE WORK

Future work should focus on improving user interactions with the model, modelling simulation standards, and adapting workHORSE for evaluation, design and implementation support.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019132087.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Out of reach? Correlates of cervical cancer underscreening in women with varying levels of healthcare interactions in a United States integrated delivery system

One in five U.S. women with health insurance are underscreened for cervical cancer. We sought to identify whether underscreening correlates differed among women with different levels of health care interaction. Among women age 30-64 years who were members of an integrated U.S. health system, we used 2014-2015 electronic health record data to identify underscreened cases (≥3.4 years since last Papanicolaou (Pap) test, n=3352) and screening-adherent controls (<3.4 years since last Pap test, n=45,359) and extracted data on potential underscreening correlates (demographics, health history, and healthcare utilization). We calculated the odds of underscreening in the total population and by subgroups defined by healthcare visits and online health portal usage in the prior 12 months. Underscreening was associated with older age (50-64 vs. 30-39; odds ratio (OR)=1.6; 95%CI=1.4-1.8), current tobacco use (vs. never use; OR=2.1; 95%CI=1.8-2.2), higher BMI (≥35 kg/m² vs <25 kg/m², OR=2.0; 95%CI=1.8-2.3), screening non-adherence for colorectal cancer (OR=5.1; 95%CI=4.6-5.7) and breast cancer (OR=8.1, 95%CI=7.2-9.0), and having no recent visit with their primary care provider (PCP) nor recent health portal use (vs. recent PCP visit and portal use; OR=8.4, 95%CI=7.6-9.4). Underscreening correlates were similar between the total study population and within all healthcare interaction groups. Interaction with the healthcare system is associated with lower odds of underscreening, but sociodemographic and health status correlates are similar regardless of primary care visits or online portal use. These data support the need for additional interventions to reach insured women who remain underscreened for cervical cancer.

Implementation and Impact of a Risk-Stratified Prostate Cancer Screening Algorithm as a Clinical Decision Support Tool in a Primary Care Network

BACKGROUND

Implementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied.

OBJECTIVE

Conduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system.

DESIGN

Comparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018).

PARTICIPANTS

Men, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider.

INTERVENTIONS

The algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates.

KEY RESULTS

During the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.

Post-reproductive aged women: a lost generation in the cervical cancer screening programme

OBJECTIVES

The aims of the study were to find out why some post-reproductive aged women did not participate in the organised cervical cancer screening programme in Latvia and to clarify factors that would motivate them to take part.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was carried out between January and July 2017 among female patients in three general practitioner (GP) practices. GP practice nurses used the Latvian national health service database to identify women aged 25-70 who had not participated in the organised programme for the last 3 years. Participants were asked to complete a specially developed questionnaire. The results were then compared between three age groups: 25-34, 35-49 and 50-70 years.

RESULTS

Included in the study were 523 out of 992 women who had not attended screening; 41% were in the age group 50-70 years. Post-reproductive aged women statistically significantly more often did not take part in the programme because of lack of time (26.4%), too great a distance to the gynaecology screening clinic (10.4%), lengthy appointment waiting time (8.5%) and a belief that a smear test was unnecessary for them (8.5%); 32.1% of women in this age group indicated that if the cervical screen could be carried out by their GP it would facilitate their participation in the programme.

CONCLUSION

Post-reproductive aged women in Latvia often do not attend cervical cancer screening. Analysis of personal and organisational barriers confirmed that the involvement of GPs would encourage older women to participate in the organised screening programme.

Implementing a multilevel intervention to accelerate colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in federally qualified health centers using a stepped wedge design: a study protocol

Background

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) not only detects disease early when treatment is more effective but also prevents cancer by finding and removing precancerous polyps. Because many of our nation’s most disadvantaged and vulnerable individuals obtain health care at federally qualified health centers, these centers play a significant role in increasing CRC screening among the most vulnerable populations. Furthermore, the full benefits of cancer screenings must include timely and appropriate follow-up of abnormal results. Thus, the purpose of this study is to implement a multilevel intervention to increase rates of CRC screening, follow-up, and referral-to-care in federally qualified health centers, as well as simultaneously to observe and to gather information on the implementation process to improve the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of the intervention. The multilevel intervention will target three different levels of influences: organization, provider, and individual. It will have multiple components, including provider and staff education, provider reminder, provider assessment and feedback, patient reminder, and patient navigation.

Methods

This study is a multilevel, three-phase, stepped wedge cluster randomized trial with four clusters of clinics from four different FQHC systems. In the first phase, there will be a 3-month waiting period during which no intervention components will be implemented. After the 3-month waiting period, we will randomize two clusters to cross from the control to the intervention and the remaining two clusters to follow 3 months later. All clusters will stay at the same phase for 9 months, followed by a 3-month transition period, and then cross over to the next phase.

Discussion

There is a pressing need to reduce disparities in CRC outcomes, especially among racial/ethnic minority populations and among populations who live in poverty. Single-level interventions are often insufficient to lead to sustainable changes. Multilevel interventions, which target two or more levels of changes, are needed to address multilevel contextual influences simultaneously. Multilevel interventions with multiple components will affect not only the desired outcomes but also each other. How to take advantage of multilevel interventions and how to implement such interventions and evaluate their effectiveness are the ultimate goals of this study.

Trial registration

This protocol is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04514341) on 14 August 2020.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

Use of a Paper Checklist to Increase Clinician Adherence to Mammography Screening Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To increase clinician adherence to mammography screening guidelines.

DESIGN

Quality improvement initiative.

SETTING/LOCAL PROBLEM

At a nurse practitioner-led primary care practice, a chart audit of adherence to American Cancer Society mammography screening guidelines indicated a 12% adherence rate for clinicians writing mammography orders.

PARTICIPANTS

Nurse practitioners providing care to women ages 40 years and older.

INTERVENTION/MEASUREMENTS

The intervention was a screening checklist that was completed by the woman at registration and given to the clinician during the examination. The pre- and postintervention measurement was the percentage of mammogram orders. A Fisher exact test was used to examine changes from pre- to postintervention rates of adherence.

RESULTS

After the intervention, the percentage of women for whom a mammogram was recommended and ordered was 69.6%, compared to 12% from the original chart audit. This change was statistically significant (p = .01).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians must find efficient approaches to improve processes within their practice settings to ensure that preventive care recommendations are made during visits. Although the screening checklist was deemed useful, improvement in adherence rates is still needed, and a paperless system should be initiated.

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports.

RESULTS

During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.

Promoting colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of interventions to increase uptake

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a global public health concern. CRC screening is associated with significant reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, however, uptake is suboptimal. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials explored the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase screening uptake, plus the impact of various moderators. Data from 102 studies including 1.94 million participants were analysed. Results showed significant benefit of all interventions combined (OR, 1.49, 95% CI: 1.43, 1.56, p < 0.001). The effects were similar in studies using objective versus self-reported uptake measures and lower in studies judged to be at high risk of bias. Moderator analyses indicated significant effects for aspects of behaviour (effects lower for studies on non-endoscopic procedures), and intervention (effects higher for studies conducted in community settings, in healthcare systems that are not free, and that use reminders, health-professional providers, paper materials supplemented with in-person or phone contact, but avoid remote contact). Interventions that included behaviour change techniques targeting social support (unspecified or practical), instructions or demonstration of the behaviour, and that added objects to the environment produced stronger effects. The way in which findings can inform interventions to improve CRC screening uptake is discussed.

Effect of an Intervention in General Practice to Increase the Participation of Immigrants in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Immigrant women have lower participation in cervical cancer screening (CCS) programs. At the same time, some groups of immigrants have higher prevalence of cervical cancer. Targeted interventions are therefore necessary.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether an intervention among general practitioners (GPs) could influence immigrant women's participation in the Norwegian CCS program.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Cluster-randomized clinical trial using the 20 subdistricts of the Bergen, Norway, municipality as clusters. The clusters were matched in 10 pairs according to the number of immigrant women living in them and randomized thereafter. The intervention was implemented between January and June 2017 among urban, primary care, general practices in Bergen. Follow-up ended in January 2018. General practices belonging to the control areas continued treatment as usual. A total of 10 360 women who attended 73 general practices in the 20 subdistricts were included as participants.

INTERVENTION

The intervention consisted of 3 elements: an educational session for GPs at lunch describing the importance of CCS among immigrants and giving advice about how to invite them to participate, a mouse pad as a reminder, and a poster placed in waiting rooms. In the educational session, we elaborated the need for GPs to ask every immigrant woman about CCS, regardless of their reason for contacting their GP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome, screening status of immigrant women by January 1, 2018, was obtained from the Norwegian Cancer Registry. The effect of the intervention was measured as odds ratio (OR) for CCS status as of January 1, 2018, for the intervention group vs the control group, with 3 levels of adjustments: baseline CCS status at January 1, 2017 (model 1), additional adjustment for women's age, marital status, income level, and region of origin (model 2), and further adjustment for the GP's sex, age, and region of origin (model 3). Two subgroup analyses, screening status at baseline and women's country of origin, were conducted to assess whether these factors had any influence on the effect of the intervention. Data were analyzed as intention to treat.

RESULTS

A total of 10 360 immigrant women, 5227 (50.4%; mean [SD] age, 44.0 [12.0] years) in the intervention group and 5133 (49.6%; mean [SD] age, 44.5 [11.6] years) in the control group, belonging to 39 general practices in the intervention area and 34 in the control area, were included in the study. The proportion of immigrant women screened increased by 2.6% in the intervention group and 0.6% in the control group. After adjustment for screening status at baseline, women in the intervention group were more likely to have participated in CCS (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.38]). This statistically significant effect remained unchanged after adjustment for women's characteristics (OR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.11-1.38]) and was reduced, but still significant, after further adjustment for GP characteristics (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.06-1.34]). In subgroup analyses, the intervention particularly increased participation among women who were not previously screened at baseline (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.56]), and those from Poland, Pakistan, and Somalia (OR, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.17-2.61]) when adjusting for baseline screening status.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Our intervention targeting general practices significantly increased CCS participation among immigrants, although the absolute effect size of 2% in the fully adjusted model was small. Engaging other primary health professionals such as midwives to perform CCS could further contribute to increasing participation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03155581.

The impact of translated reminder letters and phone calls on mammography screening booking rates: Two randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Participation in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Australia is approximately 54% among the general population, but screening among women from some culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds is lower. BreastScreen Victoria apply strategies to increase screening including reminder letters and phone calls; however, these are usually provided in English. Using intervention strategies generated from the Ophelia (OPtimise HEalth LIteracy and Access) community co-design process, translated mammography reminder letters and in-language phone calls were tested within two randomised control trials (RCTs).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Women aged 50-75 years who were due for their 2-yearly screening mammography (for RCT#1) or were under-screened, i.e. ≥27 months since last screen (for RCT#2) were randomised into intervention or control groups. RCT#1 compared sending women routine reminder letters (English only) with translated (Arabic or Italian) letters. RCT#2 compared reminder telephone calls to women in their preferred language (Arabic or Italian) to no telephone call. The primary outcome for each trial was screening booking rates within 14-days. Primary outcomes were tested using Pearson's chi-square test. Rates within language group (incidence ratio: IR) were compared using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test.

RESULTS

For RCT#1 (letters) 1,032 women were randomised into the intervention arm or to usual care. Uptake of screening bookings was similar between both groups, with no differences observed by language group. For RCT#2 (phone calls), 195 women were randomised to the intervention group or to usual care. Overall, 64.2% of women in the intervention arm and 6% in the control arm booked a screening appointment within 14 days (p<0.0001). The IR (95%CI) of booking was 10.1 (3.9, 26.3) times higher among Italian women, and 11.6 (2.9, 46.5) times higher among Arabic women in the intervention compared to usual care groups.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A service improvement initiative derived from community members and breast screen providers was found to be highly effective. This evidence informed the service provider, BreastScreen Victoria, who have implemented these improvements into routine practice to improve screening among CALD groups and reduce health inequalities.

Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) disproportionately affects people from low socioeconomic backgrounds and some racial minorities. Disparities in CRC incidence and outcomes might result from differences in exposure to risk factors such as unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle; limited access to risk-reducing behaviors such as chemoprevention, screening, and follow-up of abnormal test results; or lack of access to high-quality treatment resources. These factors operate at the individual, provider, health system, community, and policy levels to perpetuate CRC disparities. However, CRC disparities can be eliminated. Addressing the complex factors that contribute to development and progression of CRC with multicomponent, adaptive interventions, at multiple levels of the care continuum, can reduce gaps in mortality. These might be addressed with a combination of health care and community-based interventions and policy changes that promote healthy behaviors and ensure access to high-quality and effective measures for CRC prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Improving resources and coordinating efforts in communities where people of low socioeconomic status live and work would increase access to evidence-based interventions. Research is also needed to understand the role and potential mechanisms by which factors in diet, intestinal microbiome, and/or inflammation contribute to differences in colorectal carcinogenesis. Studies of large cohorts with diverse populations are needed to identify epidemiologic and molecular factors that contribute to CRC development in different populations.

Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Health professionals sometimes do not use the best evidence to treat their patients, in part due to unconscious acts of omission and information overload. Reminders help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know, or by presenting information in a different and more accessible format. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are defined as information given to the health professional with each patient or encounter, provided on paper, in which no computer is involved in the production or delivery of the reminder. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are relatively cheap interventions, and are especially relevant in settings where electronic clinical records are not widely available and affordable. This review is one of three Cochrane Reviews focused on the effectiveness of reminders in health care.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper in changing professional practice and improving patient outcomes. 2. To explore whether a number of potential effect modifiers influence the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 5 December 2018. We searched grey literature, screened individual journals, conference proceedings and relevant systematic reviews, and reviewed reference lists and cited references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and non-randomised trials assessing the impact of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention (compared with usual care) or added to one or more co-interventions as a multicomponent intervention (compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component) on professional practice or patients' outcomes. We also included randomised and non-randomised trials comparing manually-generated reminders with other quality improvement (QI) interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data independently. We extracted the primary outcome as defined by the authors or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes in each study. We then calculated the median percentage improvement and interquartile range across the included studies that reported improvement related outcomes, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 studies (41 cluster-randomised trials, 18 individual randomised trials, and four non-randomised trials) that met all inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven studies reported usable data (64 comparisons). The studies were mainly located in North America (42 studies) and the UK (eight studies). Fifty-four studies took place in outpatient/ambulatory settings. The clinical areas most commonly targeted were cardiovascular disease management (11 studies), cancer screening (10 studies) and preventive care (10 studies), and most studies had physicians as their target population (57 studies). General management of a clinical condition (17 studies), test-ordering (14 studies) and prescription (10 studies) were the behaviours more commonly targeted by the intervention. Forty-eight studies reported changes in professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (e.g. compliance with guidelines recommendations), 16 reported those changes measured as continuous process-of-care outcomes (e.g. number of days with catheters), eight reported dichotomous patient outcomes (e.g. mortality rates) and five reported continuous patient outcomes (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure). Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper probably improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes) compared with usual care (median improvement 8.45% (IQR 2.54% to 20.58%); 39 comparisons, 40,346 participants; moderate certainty of evidence) and may make little or no difference to continuous process-of-care outcomes (8 comparisons, 3263 participants; low certainty of evidence). Adding manually-generated paper reminders to one or more QI co-interventions may slightly improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (median improvement 4.24% (IQR -1.09% to 5.50%); 12 comparisons, 25,359 participants; low certainty of evidence) and probably slightly improve professional practice measured as continuous outcomes (median improvement 0.28 (IQR 0.04 to 0.51); 2 comparisons, 12,372 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Compared with other QI interventions, manually-generated reminders may slightly decrease professional practice measured as process adherence outcomes (median decrease 7.9% (IQR -0.7% to 11%); 14 comparisons, 21,274 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether manually-generated reminders delivered on paper, compared with usual care or with other QI intervention, lead to better or worse patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous), as the certainty of the evidence is very low (10 studies, 13 comparisons). Reminders added to other QI interventions may make little or no difference to patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous) compared with the QI alone (2 studies, 2 comparisons). Regarding resource use, studies reported additional costs per additional point of effectiveness gained, but because of the different currencies and years used the relevance of those figures is uncertain. None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably lead to small to moderate increases in outcomes related to adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single QI intervention. It is uncertain whether reminders should be added to other QI intervention already in place in the health system, although the effects may be positive. If other QI interventions, such as patient or computerised reminders, are available, they should be preferred over manually-generated reminders, but under close evaluation in order to decrease uncertainty about their potential effect.

Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening

Systematic reviews with economic components are important decision tools for stakeholders seeking to evaluate technologies, such as breast cancer screening (BCS) programs. This overview of systematic reviews explores the determinants of the cost-effectiveness of BCS and assesses the quality of secondary evidence. The search identified 30 systematic reviews that reported on the determinants of the cost-effectiveness of BCS, including the costs of breast cancer and BCS. While the quality of the reviews varied widely, only four out of 30 papers were considered to be of a high quality. We did not identify publication bias in the original evidence on the cost-effectiveness of mammography screening; however, we highlight a need for improved clarity in both reporting and data verification. The reviews consisted mainly of studies from high-income countries. Breast cancer costs varied widely among the studies. Factors leading to higher costs included: time (diagnosis and last months before death), later stage or metastases, recurrence of the disease, age below 64 years and type of follow-up (more intensive or more specialized). Overall, screening with mammography was considered cost-effective in the age range 50-69 years in Western European and Northern American countries but not for older or younger women. Its cost-effectiveness was questionable for low-income settings and Asia. Mammography screening was more cost-effective with biennial screening compared to annual screening and single reading using computer-aided detection vs double reading. No information on the cost-effectiveness of ultrasonography was found, and there is much uncertainty on the cost-effectiveness of CBE because of methodological limitations.

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice

Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systematic reviews (SRs).

Methods: A search of peer-reviewed CRCS SRs that were written in English was employed utilizing five databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, rTIPS, PubMed, and PsycINFO EBSCOHOST. SRs that included CRCS interventions with a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or single arm design were eligible. Data on effect sizes by screening modality, intervention level, and intervention component were extracted and synthesized.

Results: There were 16 eligible CRCS intervention SRs that included 116 studies published between 1986 and 2013. Reviews organized data by CRCS screening modality, or intervention component. Effect size reporting varied by format (i.e., ranges, medians of multiple studies, or effect size per study), and groupings of modalities and components. Overall, the largest effect sizes were for studies that utilized a combination of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and sigmoidoscopy as screening options (16–45 percentage point difference).

Conclusions: Evidence suggests that CRCS interventions which include a combination of screening modalities may be most effective. This is the first SR to examine effect sizes of published CRCS SRs. However, because some SRs did not report effect sizes and there were tremendous variability reporting formats among those that did, a standard reporting format is warranted. Synthesizing findings can contribute to improved knowledge of evidence-based best-practices, direct translation of findings into policy and practice, and guide further research in CRCS.

Colorectal Cancer: Applying the Value Transformation Framework to increase the percent of patients receiving screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Background

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. and third-most common cancer in both men and women. Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) rates remain low, particularly among vulnerable patients receiving care at federally qualified health centers. Through its Value Transformation Framework, the National Association of Community Health Centers provides a systematic approach to improving CRCS by transforming health center infrastructure, care delivery, and people systems—to improve health outcomes, patient and staff experiences, and lower costs (Quadruple Aim).

Methods

We combined the Value Transformation Framework, evidence-based CRCS interventions, and the Learning Community Model to drive system improvements and implement evidence-based practices. Multi-disciplinary teams at 8 health centers in Georgia and Iowa participated for 1-year with Primary Care Association support.

Results

Pre−/post- 1-year-intervention data showed, within health centers, raw percentage of eligible patients screened for CRC increased from 33.2% (13.5%–61.7%) in January 2017 to 46.5% (14.2%–81.5%) in December 2017, with an overall 13.3 percentage point average increase. This translates into an average increase of 3.3 (95% CI: 1.7, 5.0) eligible patients screened per month per health center over the year or 317 additional patients meeting CRCS guidelines. Specific interventions associated with higher CRCS rates included standing orders, sharing performance data, and electronic health record alerts.

Conclusion

Findings support a three-pronged approach for improving CRCS: The Value Transformation Framework's evidence-based recommendations, with actionable CRC interventions, offered in a learning community. These results guide methodological approaches to improving CRCS in health centers through a multi-level, multi-modality quality improvement and transformation approach.

Barriers to Lung Cancer Screening Engagement from the Patient and Provider Perspective

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose CT reduces mortality among high-risk current and former smokers and has been covered by public and private insurers without cost sharing since 2015. Patients and referring providers confront numerous barriers to participation in screening. To best serve in multidisciplinary efforts to expand LCS nationwide, radiologists must be knowledgeable of these challenges. A better understanding of the difficulties confronted by other stakeholders will help radiologists continue to collaboratively guide the growth of LCS programs in their communities. This article reviews barriers to participation in LCS for patients and referring providers, as well as possible solutions and interventions currently underway.

Electronic physician notifications to improve guideline-based anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk are not treated with oral anticoagulants.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether electronic notifications sent to primary care physicians increase the proportion of ambulatory patients prescribed oral anticoagulants.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial conducted from February to May 2017 within 18 practices in an academic primary care network.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care physicians (n = 175) and their patients with atrial fibrillation, at elevated stroke risk, and not prescribed oral anticoagulants.

INTERVENTION

Patients of each physician were randomized to the notification or usual care arm. Physicians received baseline email notifications and up to three reminders with patient information, educational material and primary care guidelines for anticoagulation management, and surveys in the notification arm.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed oral anticoagulants at 3 months in the notification (n = 972) vs. usual care (n = 1364) arms, compared using logistic regression with clustering by physician. Secondary measures included survey-based physician assessment of reasons why patients were not prescribed oral anticoagulants and how primary care physicians might be influenced by the notification.

KEY RESULTS

Over 3 months, a small proportion of patients were newly prescribed oral anticoagulants with no significant difference in the notification (3.9%, 95% CI 2.8-5.3%) and usual care (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4-4.2%) arms (p = 0.37). The most common, non-exclusive reasons why patients were not on oral anticoagulants included atrial fibrillation was transient (30%) or paroxysmal (12%), patient/family declined (22%), high bleeding risk (20%), fall risk (19%), and frailty (10%). For 95% of patients, physicians stated they would not change their management after reviewing the alert.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic physician notification did not increase anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk. Primary care physicians did not prescribe anticoagulants because they perceived the bleeding risk was too high or stroke risk was too low.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02950285.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions and Implementation Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

While colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been increasing in the general population, rates are considerably lower in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which serve a large proportion of uninsured and medically vulnerable patients. Efforts to screen eligible patients must be accelerated if we are to reach the national screening goal of 80% by 2018 and beyond. To inform this work, we conducted a survey of key informants at FQHCs in eight states to determine which evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to promote CRC screening are currently being used, and which implementation strategies are being employed to ensure that the interventions are executed as intended. One hundred and forty-eight FQHCs were invited to participate in the study, and 56 completed surveys were received for a response rate of 38%. Results demonstrated that provider reminder and recall systems were the most commonly used EBIs (44.6%) while the most commonly used implementation strategy was the identification of barriers (84.0%). The mean number of EBIs that were fully implemented at the centers was 2.4 (range 0-7) out of seven. Almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that their FQHCs were not using any EBIs to increase CRC screening. Full implementation of EBIs was correlated with higher CRC screening rates. These findings identify gaps as well as the preferences and needs of FQHCs in selecting and implementing EBIs for CRC screening.

Trends in cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Oklahoma and the United States, 1999-2013

BACKGROUND

The twin prevention strategies of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening reduce new cases and averts deaths, yet women still develop or die from cervical cancer. To assess and better understand the burden of cervical cancer in Oklahoma, we analyzed incidence and mortality trends in Oklahoma from 1999 to 2013.

METHODS

We obtained age-adjusted cervical cancer incidence and mortality rates and calculated standardized rate ratios (RR) for women in Oklahoma compared to the US. To evaluate temporal changes in annual age-adjusted incidence and mortality, we calculated the annual percent change (APC) using the Joinpoint Regression Program.

RESULTS

We observed higher age-adjusted incidence (RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.3) and mortality (RR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.2) rates among women in Oklahoma compared to the US. The overall incidence and mortality rates in Oklahoma were 9.7 and 2.9 per 100,000 women, respectively. In Oklahoma, the highest age-adjusted incidence rates were in American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) (14.8 per 100,000 females) and Asian or Pacific Islander (API) (11.7 per 100,000 females) women and the highest mortality rates were in AI/AN (4.5 per 100,000 females) and African American (AA) (3.9 per 100,000 females) women. Incidence rates decreased for AA women (APC: -4.0; 95% CI: -7.7, -0.2), but were stable for all other races and ethnicities in Oklahoma (APC: -0.8; 95% CI: -2.2, 0.7). A stable trend for mortality was observed in Oklahoma (APC: 0.1; 95% CI: -2.2, 2.5) each year.

CONCLUSION

Women in Oklahoma had a higher cervical cancer incidence and mortality rate than the US. A disproportionately higher incidence of cervical cancer among AI/AN and API women and deaths among AI/AN and AA women were observed signaling continuing racial disparities.

Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening among Diverse Cultural Groups in Melbourne, Australia

This study explored the association between health literacy, barriers to breast cancer screening, and breast screening participation for women from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. English-, Arabic- and Italian-speaking women (n = 317) between the ages of 50 to 74 in North West Melbourne, Australia were recruited to complete a survey exploring health literacy, barriers to breast cancer screening, and self-reported screening participation. A total of 219 women (69%) reported having a breast screen within the past two years. Results revealed that health literacy was not associated with screening participation. Instead, emotional barriers were a significant factor in the self-reported uptake of screening. Three health literacy domains were related to lower emotional breast screening barriers, feeling understood and supported by healthcare providers, social support for health and understanding health information well enough to know what to do. Compared with English- and Italian-speaking women, Arabic-speaking women reported more emotional barriers to screening and greater challenges in understanding health information well enough to know what to do. Interventions that can improve breast screening participation rates should aim to reduce emotional barriers to breast screening, particularly for Arabic-speaking women.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Despite lower cancer screening rates and survival rates in the Medicaid population compared with those with private insurance, there is a dearth of population-based, evidence-based interventions targeting Medicaid clients to address this problem.Methods: This study reports results of a population-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) among all individuals enrolled in Minnesota's Medicaid program who were overdue for breast cancer (n = 22,113) and/or colorectal cancer (n = 94,294) screening. Individuals were randomized to intervention or control groups. The intervention group received persuasive and innovative direct mail materials coupled with a $20 incentive for using their Medicaid benefit to get screened. Direct mail materials provided a phone number to a call center staffed by patient navigators who addressed barriers and scheduled appointments via three-way calls. The control group received the intervention 15 months later. Primary outcomes were completion of mammography or colonoscopy within 12 weeks of the intervention. Billing claims served as evidence of screening.Results: Multivariate logistic regression showed significant differences for both breast cancer (P < 0.001) and colorectal cancer (P < 0.01). The odds of receiving a mammogram for the treatment group were significantly higher than the control group [OR = 1.30; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.16-1.46], and the treatment group was more likely to receive a colonoscopy than the control group (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.04-1.21).Conclusions: This population-based intervention increased breast cancer and colorectal cancer screening in a Medicaid population overdue for screening.Impact: These findings may have broad application for reaching individuals who generally remain outside the health care system despite having public health insurance. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(9); 1047-56. ©2018 AACR.

How asymptomatic are early cancer patients of five organs based on registry data in Japan

BACKGROUND

One reason for the low cancer screening rate in Japan is that people are not concerned about cancer if they do not have symptoms.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively analyzed 18,405 cancer patients using hospital-based cancer registry data collected between 2007 and 2013 at the 13 hospitals of Shimane Prefecture, Japan. The symptomatic rates of five cancers (stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, and cervix) at each stage and the time of early diagnosis were investigated. The early detection rates of symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals were investigated.

RESULTS

The percentages of symptomatic cases tended to increase with progressive stages. The odds ratio (OR) of stage IV compared with that of stage I was 12.23 for stomach, 7.21 for colorectal, 16.91 for lung, 10.30 for breast, and 51.62 for cervical cancer. The proportions of early symptomatic cases at the time of diagnosis were low. Compared with the percentage of early symptomatic cases of stomach cancer of 25.5%, the percentage of lung cancer was the lowest, at 8.2% (OR 0.26), and the percentage of breast cancer was the highest, at 30.2% (OR 1.26). The percentages of early symptomatic cases of colorectal and cervical cancer were 18.9% (OR 0.68) and 19.9% (OR 0.73), respectively. The early detection rates of the asymptomatic and symptomatic groups were 77.6 and 36.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cancer registry data indicate that early cancers are asymptomatic, and once symptoms appear, treatment may not be effective. Policy makers should inform people of the necessity of cancer screening before they have symptoms.

Timely follow-up of positive cancer screening results: A systematic review and recommendations from the PROSPR Consortium

Timely follow-up for positive cancer screening results remains suboptimal, and the evidence base to inform decisions on optimizing the timeliness of diagnostic testing is unclear. This systematic review evaluated published studies regarding time to follow-up after a positive screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. The quality of available evidence was very low or low across cancers, with potential attenuated or reversed associations from confounding by indication in most studies. Overall, evidence suggested that the risk for poorer cancer outcomes rises with longer wait times that vary within and across cancer types, which supports performing diagnostic testing as soon as feasible after the positive result, but evidence for specific time targets is limited. Within these limitations, we provide our opinion on cancer-specific recommendations for times to follow-up and how existing guidelines relate to the current evidence. Thresholds set should consider patient worry, potential for loss to follow-up with prolonged wait times, and available resources. Research is needed to better guide the timeliness of diagnostic follow-up, including considerations for patient preferences and existing barriers, while addressing methodological weaknesses. Research is also needed to identify effective interventions for reducing wait times for diagnostic testing, particularly in underserved or low-resource settings. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:199-216. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Effect of reminders mailed to general practitioners on colorectal cancer screening adherence: a cluster-randomized trial

Reminders have been used in various settings, but failed to produce convincing evidence of benefits on patient adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of sending general practitioners (GPs) printed reminders about CRC screening. We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 144 GPs in the Val-de-Marne district (France), who provided care for any reason to 20 778 patients eligible for CRC screening between June 2010 and November 2011. Data were collected from the main statutory health-insurance programme and local cancer screening agency. GPs were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 proportion to the intervention or the control group. Every 4 months, intervention-group GPs received a computer-generated printed list of patients who had not performed scheduled faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening. The primary outcome was patient adherence to FOBT screening or exclusion from CRC screening for medical reasons. The screening adherence rate was 31.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 30.3-32.1] in the control group and 32.9% (95% CI 32.0-33.8) in the intervention group [crude relative risk, 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.09), P<0.01]. This rate was not significantly different between groups by multilevel modelling accounting for clustering and confounding variables [adjusted relative risk, 1.07 (95% CI 0.95-1.20), P=0.27]. Computer-generated printed reminders sent to GPs did not significantly improve patient adherence to organized CRC screening by the FOBT.

Factors influencing participation in fecal occult blood testing to screen for colorectal cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol

REVIEW QUESTION

The objective of this scoping review is to examine and map the evidence on the range of factors influencing a person's decision to screen or not screen for colorectal cancer using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in Australia, with the view to identifying gaps in the research and informing appropriate questions for future systematic reviews.The question of this review is: what evidence is available around the barriers and facilitators that influence an individual's decision to screen or not screen for colorectal cancer using a fecal occult blood test in Australia?