Cancer Prevention in a Postpandemic World: A One-Stop-Shop Approach

One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic: Acceptability Testing

Cancer screenings aid in the early detection of cancer and can help reduce cancer-related mortality. The current model of care for cancer screening is often siloed, based on the targeted cancer site. We tested the acceptability of a new model of care, called the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic, that centralizes cancer screenings and offers patients the option to complete all their recommended cancer screenings within one to two visits. We administered surveys to 59 community members and 26 healthcare providers to gather feedback about the One-Stop-Shop model of care. Both community members and providers identified potential benefits (e.g., decreased patient burden, increased completion of cancer screenings) and also potential challenges (e.g., challenges with workflow and timing of care) of the model of care. The results of the study support the acceptability of the model of care. Of the community members surveyed, 89.5% said, if offered, they would be interested in participating in the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic. Future studies are needed to formally evaluate the impact and cost effectiveness of the One-Stop-Shop Cancer Screening Clinic.

Factors associated with prior completion of colorectal cancer and hepatitis C virus screenings among community health center patients: a cross-sectional study to inform a multi-behavioral educational intervention

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) and liver cancer are two of the leading causes of cancer death in the United States and persistent disparities in CRC and liver cancer incidence and outcomes exist. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is one of the main contributors to liver cancer. Effective screening for both CRC and HCV exist and are recommended for individuals based upon age, regardless of gender or sex assigned at birth. Recommendations for both screening behaviors have been recently updated. However, screening rates for both CRC and HCV are suboptimal. Targeting adoption of multiple screening behaviors has the potential to reduce cancer mortality and disparities.

OBJECTIVE

To examine psychosocial factors associated with completion of CRC and HCV screenings in order to inform a multi-behavioral educational intervention that pairs CRC and HCV screening information.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with participants (N = 50) recruited at two community health centers in Florida (United States). Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine associations between completion of both CRC and HCV screening, CRC and HCV knowledge, Preventive Health Model constructs (e.g., salience and coherence, response efficacy, social influence), and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

Most participants were White (84%), female (56%), insured (80%), and reported a household income of $25,000 or less (53%). 30% reported ever previously completing both CRC and HCV screenings. Prior completion of both screening behaviors was associated with higher educational attainment (p = .014), having health insurance (p = .022), being U.S.-born (p = .043), and higher salience and coherence scores for CRC (p = .040) and HCV (p = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate limited uptake of both CRC and HCV screenings among adults born between 1945 and 1965. Uptake was associated with multiple sociodemographic factors and health beliefs related to salience and coherence. Salience and coherence are modifiable factors associated with completion of both screening tests, suggesting the importance of incorporating these health beliefs in a multi-behavioral cancer education intervention. Additionally, health providers could simultaneously recommend and order CRC and HCV screening to improve uptake among this age cohort.

Advancing the science of integrating multiple interventions by blending and bundling

Cancer prevention and control research has produced a variety of effective interventions over the years, though most are single disease focused. To meet the Cancer Moonshot goal to reduce the cancer death rate by 50% by 2047, it may be necessary to overcome the limitations of siloed interventions that do not meet people's multiple needs and limitations in system capacity to deliver the increasing number of interventions in parallel. In this article, we propose integrating multiple evidence-based interventions as a potential solution. We define 2 types of integrated interventions, blended and bundled, and provide examples to illustrate each. We then offer a schematic and outline considerations for how to assemble blended or bundled interventions including looking at the intervention need or opportunity along the cancer continuum as well as co-occurring behaviors or motivations. We also discuss delivery workflow integration considerations including social-ecological level(s), context or setting, implementer, and intended beneficiary. Finally, in assembling integrated interventions, we encourage consideration of practice-based expertise and community and/or patient input. After assembly, we share thoughts related to implementation and evaluation of blended or bundled interventions. To conclude the article, we present multiple research opportunities in this space. With swift progress on these research directions, cancer prevention and control interventionists and implementation scientists can contribute to achieving the promise of the reignited Cancer Moonshot.