Association Between Number of Preventive Care Guidelines and Preventive Care Utilization by Patients

Sex and income inequalities in preventive services in diabetes

BACKGROUND

Cancer preventive services (gynaecological cancer screening, colon cancer screening) and cardiometabolic screening are recommended by guidelines to individuals. People with diabetes were less likely to receive them than those without diabetes in some studies.

OBJECTIVES

To analyse differences in the coverage of preventive services in people with diabetes compared to non-diabetic individuals and in people with diabetes according to sex and household income.

METHODS

We analysed data collected from the European Health Interview Survey 2013-2015, including individuals aged 40-74 (n = 179,318), 15,172 with diabetes from 29 countries. The income of a household (HHI) was described in quintiles. The relationship between the coverage of preventive services (cardiometabolic, vaccination, cancer screening) and sociodemographic characteristics was analysed with multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Women comprised 53.8% of the total and 40% were 60-74 years. People with diabetes compared to those without diabetes had higher reported coverage of cardiometabolic screening (98.4% vs. 90.0% in cholesterol measurement; 97.0% vs. 93.6% in blood pressure measurement), colorectal cancer screening (27.1% vs. 24.6%) but lower coverage of gynaecological cancer screening (mammography: 29.2% vs. 33.5%, pap smear test: 28.3% vs. 37.9%). Among diabetic patients, women were less likely to receive cholesterol screening (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.91) and colon cancer screening (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73-0.86) compared to men. Being affluent was positively associated with receiving cardiometabolic screening and mammography in diabetic patients.

CONCLUSION

People with diabetes reported higher coverage of preventive services except gynaecological cancer screening. Disparities were found in diabetes among women and less affluent individuals.

FAMILY PHYSICIAN OPINIONS ON ELECTRONIC TOOLS AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION GUIDELINE AVAILABILITY, USAGE AND ADHERENCE IN CROATIA

Family physicians are burdened with a great number of guidelines considering different conditions they treat. We analyzed opinions of family physicians on electronic tools which help managing chronic conditions and their influence on patient care by cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guideline availability, usage and adherence. A descriptive study was performed on a convenient sample of 417 (response rate 56.0%) Croatian family physicians. Data on physician characteristics and availability, usage and adherence to CVD prevention guidelines were analyzed. The χ2-test was used for comparisons. Significance was defined as p<0.05. Family physicians who used additional electronic tools in Electronic Health Record software on more than 80% of their patients had CVD prevention guidelines more available (p<0.01) and used them more frequently (p<0.01). A group who used electronic tools on more than 80% of their patients had CVD prevention guidelines available to them frequently and used them on more than 60% of their patients, also strictly adhering to the guidelines (p<0.01). Physicians who used CVD prevention guidelines on more than 60% of their patients spent more time doing patient education (p=0.036). Using electronic tools helps Croatian family physicians in terms of availability, usage and adherence to the guidelines and quality improvement.

Factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among individuals who were positive in the preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the potential factors associated with adherence to colonoscopy among participants who were preliminarily screened positive in a community-based colorectal cancer screening program in China.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from 1219 out of 6971 community residents who were identified as positive cases by the well-validated high-risk factor questionnaire (HRFQ) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in the preliminary screening stage for colorectal neoplasms. Patients showing adherence to colonoscopy were defined as those who received positive results in a preliminary screening for colorectal neoplasms and later received a colonoscopy examination as required. The associations of social-demographic factors, lifestyle behaviors, history of diabetes, body mass index (BMI), and risk factors in the HRFQ with adherence to colonoscopy were evaluated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 1219 participants who preliminarily screened positive, the top five risk factors reported by the participants were chronic constipation (25.9%), hematochezia (23.5%), family history of CRC in first-degree relatives (22.1%), chronic diarrhea (21.8%), and history of polyps (16.6%). Around 14.2% of participants who preliminarily screened positive reported three or more risk factors, and the proportion was 26.2% among participants who were positive according to both HRFQ and FIT. Among all participants who were preliminarily screened positive, the multivariable results showed that those who were married (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.25, p = 0.01), had chronic diarrhea (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.78, p = 0.047), and had a positive FIT (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.21, 2.10, p < 0.001 for patients who were negative according to HRFQ but positive according to FIT; OR = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.33, 2.78, p = 0.002 for patients who were positive for both HRFQ and FIT) were more likely to adhere to colonoscopy, while participants with a history of cancer (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.79, p = 0.003) were less likely to adhere to colonoscopy. The results among participants who were tested positive according to only HRFQ were similar to those among all participants who were tested positive according to HRFQ or FIT. However, among participants who were tested positive according to only FIT, we only found that those who were married (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 1.08, 5.90, p = 0.033) had a higher odds of adhering to colonoscopy, while those with a history of diabetes (OR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.96, p = 0.042) were less likely to adhere to colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide evidence supporting the development of tailored interventional strategies that aim to improve adherence to colonoscopy for individuals with a high risk of colorectal neoplasms. Both barriers and facilitators associated with adherence to colonoscopy should be considered in supportive systems and health policies. However, further well-designed prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Periodic screening for breast and cervical cancer in women with diabetes: a population-based cohort study

PURPOSE

Diabetes is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. Screening for breast and cervical cancer is recommended by clinical guidelines; however, utilization of these tests in people with diabetes has been unclear due to methodological limitations in the evidence base. We used administrative data to determine the association between diabetes and the rates of becoming up-to-date with periodic breast and cervical cancer screening over a 20-year period.

METHODS

Healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble two population-based cohorts of 50-70 and 21-70 year-olds between 1994 and 2011, eligible for breast and cervical cancer screening, respectively. Using age as the time scale, multivariable recurrent events models were implemented to examine the association between the presence of diabetes and the rates of becoming up-to-date with the recommended cancer screenings.

RESULTS

In each of the breast and cervical cancer screening cohorts, there were, respectively, 1,516,302 (16% had diabetes at baseline) and 4,751,220 (9.5% had diabetes at baseline) screen-eligible women. In multivariable models, prevalent diabetes (duration ≥ 2 years) was associated with lower rates of becoming up-to-date with cervical (hazard ratio, HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.84-0.85) and breast (HR 0.94, CI 0.93-0.94) cancer screening, compared to no diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Having diabetes is associated with decreased rates of becoming up-to-date with two recommended periodic cancer screenings, with a bigger reduction in the rates of becoming up-to-date with cervical cancer screening. Greater attention to cervical cancer preventive services is needed in women with diabetes.

The Role of Chiropractic Care in Providing Health Promotion and Clinical Preventive Services for Adult Patients with Musculoskeletal Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline

Objective: To develop evidence-based recommendations on best practices for delivery of clinical preventive services by chiropractors and to offer practical resources to empower provider applications in practice. Design: Clinical practice guideline based on evidence-based recommendations of a panel of practitioners and experts on clinical preventive services. Methods: Synthesizing the results of a literature search for relevant clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews, a multidisciplinary steering committee with training and experience in health promotion, clinical prevention, and/or evidence-based chiropractic practice drafted a set of recommendations. A Delphi panel of experienced practitioners and faculty, primarily but not exclusively chiropractors, rated the recommendations by using the formal consensus methodology established by the RAND Corporation/University of California. Results: The Delphi consensus process was conducted during January-February 2021. The 65-member Delphi panel reached a high level of consensus on appropriate application of clinical preventive services for screening and health promotion counseling within the chiropractic scope of practice. Interprofessional collaboration for the successful delivery of clinical preventive services was emphasized. Recommendations were made on primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention of musculoskeletal pain. Conclusions: Application of this guideline in chiropractic practice may facilitate consistent and appropriate use of screening and preventive services and foster interprofessional collaboration to promote clinical preventive services and contribute to improved public health.

Influence of chronic comorbidities on periodic colorectal cancer screening participation: A population-based cohort study

Guidelines recommend regular screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the effects of chronic comorbidities on periodic CRC testing. Using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, we assembled a population-based cohort of 50-74-year olds overdue for guideline-recommended CRC screening between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2016. We implemented multivariable recurrent events models to determine the association between comorbidities and the rate of becoming up-to-date with periodic CRC tests. The cohort included 4,642,422 individuals. CRC testing rates were significantly lower in persons with renal disease on dialysis (hazard ratio, HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.63 to 0.68), heart failure (HR 0.75, CI 0.75 to 0.76), respiratory disease (HR 0.84, CI 0.83 to 0.84), cardiovascular disease (HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85), diabetes (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.87) and mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.87 to 0.88). There was an inverse association between the number of medical conditions and the rate of CRC testing (5 vs. none: HR 0.30, CI 0.25 to 0.36; 4 vs. none: HR 0.48, CI 0.47 to 0.50; 3 vs. none: HR 0.59, CI 0.58 to 0.60; 2 vs. none: HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72; 1 vs. none: HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85). Having both medical and mental comorbidities was associated with lower testing rates than either type of comorbidity alone (HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72). In summary, chronic comorbidities present a barrier to periodic guideline-recommended CRC testing. Exploration of cancer prevention gaps in these populations is warranted.

Modeling Strategies to Optimize Cancer Screening in USPSTF Guideline-Noncompliant Women

Importance

In 2018, only half of US women obtained all evidence-based cancer screenings. This proportion may have declined during the COVID-19 pandemic because of social distancing, high-risk factors, and fear.

Objective

To evaluate optimal screening strategies in women who obtain some, but not all, US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)-recommended cancer screenings.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This modeling study was conducted from January 31, 2017, to July 20, 2020, and used 4 validated mathematical models from the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network using data from 20 million simulated women born in 1965 in the US.

Interventions

Forty-five screening strategies were modeled that combined breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer (LC) screenings; restricted to 1, 2, 3 or 4 screenings per year; or all eligible screenings once every 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Modeled life-years gained from restricted cancer screenings as a fraction of those attainable from full compliance with USPSTF recommendations (maximum benefits). Results were stratified by LC screening eligibility (LC-eligible/ineligible). We repeated the analysis with 2018 adherence rates, evaluating the increase in adherence required for restricted screenings to have the same population benefit as USPSTF recommendations.

Results

This modeling study of 20 million simulated US women found that it was possible to reduce screening intensity to 1 carefully chosen test per year in women who were ineligible for LC screening and 2 tests per year in eligible women while maintaining 94% or more of the maximum benefits. Highly ranked strategies screened for various cancers, but less often than recommended by the USPSTF. For example, among LC-ineligible women who obtained just 1 screening per year, the optimal strategy frequently delayed breast and cervical cancer screenings by 1 year and skipped 3 mammograms entirely. Among LC-eligible women, LC screening was essential; strategies omitting it provided 25% or less of the maximum benefits. The top-ranked strategy restricted to 2 screenings per year was annual LC screening and alternating fecal immunochemical test with mammography (skipping mammograms when due for cervical cancer screening, 97% of maximum benefits). If adherence in a population of LC-eligible women obtaining 2 screenings per year were to increase by 1% to 2% (depending on the screening test), this model suggests that it would achieve the same benefit as USPSTF recommendations at 2018 adherence rates.

Conclusions and Relevance

This modeling study of 45 cancer screening strategies suggests that women who are noncompliant with cancer screening guidelines may be able to reduce USPSTF-recommended screening intensity with minimal reduction in overall benefits.

Breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Individuals with diabetes are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. Evidence-based guidelines recommend universal screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer; however, evidence on the uptake of these tests in individuals with diabetes is mixed. We conducted a meta-analysis to quantify the association between diabetes and participation in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched systematically for publications between 1 January 1997 and 18 July 2018. The search was supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of the included studies and known literature reviews. Abstracts and full texts were assessed in duplicate according to the following eligibility criteria: study conducted in the general population; diabetes included as a predictor vs a comparison group without diabetes; and breast (mammography), cervical (Papanicolaou smear) or colorectal (faecal and endoscopic tests) cancer screening uptake included as an outcome. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the most-adjusted estimates for each cancer site.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies (25 cross-sectional, 12 cohorts) were included, with 27 studies on breast, 19 on cervical and 18 on colorectal cancer screening. Having diabetes was associated with significantly lower likelihood of breast (adjusted OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90]) and cervical (OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.71, 0.81]) cancer screening, relative to not having diabetes. Colorectal cancer screening was comparable across groups with and without diabetes (OR 0.95 [95% CI 0.86, 1.06]); however, women with diabetes were less likely to receive a colorectal cancer screening test than women without diabetes (OR 0.86 [95% CI 0.77, 0.97]).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Our findings suggest that women with diabetes have suboptimal breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening rates, compared with women without diabetes, although the absolute differences might be modest. Given the increased risk of cancer in this population, higher quality prospective evidence is necessary to evaluate the contribution of diabetes to cancer screening disparities in relation to other patient-, provider- and system-level factors.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration ID CRD42017073107.

Assessing Patient Interest in Individualized Preventive Care Recommendations

Background. Few Americans obtain all 41 guideline-recommended preventive services for nonpregnant adults. We assessed patient interest in prioritizing their preventive care needs. Methods. We conducted a mixed-methods study, with 4 focus groups (N = 28) at a single institution and a nationwide survey (N = 2,103). Participants were middle-aged and older adults with preventive care needs. We obtained reactions to written materials describing the magnitude of benefit from major preventive services, including both absolute and relative benefits. Recommendations were individualized for patient risk factors (“individualized preventive care recommendations”). Focus groups assessed patient interest, how patients would want to discuss individualized recommendations with their providers, and potential for individualized recommendations to influence patient decision making. Survey content was based on focus groups and analyzed with logistic regression. Results. Patients expressed strong interest in individualized recommendations. Among survey respondents, an adjusted 88.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86.7% to 89.7%) found individualized recommendations very easy to understand, 77.2% (95% CI = 75.3% to 79.1%) considered them very useful, and 64.9% (95% CI = 62.8% to 67.0%) highly trustworthy (each ≥6/7 on Likert scale). Three quarters of participants wanted to receive their own individualized recommendations in upcoming primary care visits (adjusted proportion = 77.5%, 95% CI = 75.6% to 79.4%). Both focus group and survey participants supported shared decision making and reported that individualized recommendations would improve motivation to obtain preventive care. Half of survey respondents reported that they would be much more likely to visit their doctor if they knew individualized recommendations would be discussed, compared with 4.2% who would not be more likely to visit their doctor. Survey respondents already prioritized preventive services, stating they were most likely to choose quick/easy preventive services and least likely to choose expensive preventive services (adjusted proportions, 63.8% and 8.5%, respectively). Results were consistent in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions. Individualized preventive care recommendations are likely to be well received in primary care and might motivate patients to improve adherence to evidence-based care.

The Practice Gap: National Estimates of Screening and Counseling for Alcohol, Tobacco, and Obesity

Tobacco use, lack of physical activity and poor diet, and alcohol consumption are leading causes of death in the United States. We estimated screening and counseling rates by using a nationally representative sample of adults aged 35 years and older with a preventive care supplement to the 2014 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Receipt of the recommended level of services ranged from nearly two-thirds (64.2% for obesity, 61.9% for tobacco use) to less than one-half (41.0% for alcohol misuse). There is significant room for improving care delivery, but primary care practices probably also need additional resources to raise screening and counseling rates.