Provider recommendation for colorectal cancer screening: examining the role of patients' socioeconomic status and health insurance

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Providing Recommendations During Goals-of-Care Conversations: A Multisite Survey

Background: Goals-of-care conversations (GoCCs) are essential for individualized end-of-life care. Shared decision-making (SDM) that elicits patients' goals and values to collaboratively make life sustaining treatment (LST) decisions is best practice. However, it is unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic onset and associated changes to care delivery, stress on providers, and clinical uncertainty affected SDM and recommendation-making during GoCCs. Aim: To assess providers' attitudes and behaviors related to GoCCs during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify factors associated with provision of LST recommendations. Design: Survey of United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) health care providers. Setting/Participants: Health care providers from 20 VA facilities with high COVID-19 caseloads early in the pandemic who had authority to place LST orders and practiced in select specialties (n = 3398). Results: We had 323 respondents (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most were age ≥50 years (51%), female (63%), non-Hispanic white (64%), and had ≥1 GoCC per week during peak-COVID-19 (78%). Compared with pre-COVID-19, providers believed it was less appropriate and felt less comfortable giving an LST recommendation during peak-COVID-19 (p < 0.001). One-third (32%) reported either "never" or "rarely" giving an LST recommendation during GoCCs at peak-COVID-19. In adjusted regression models, being a physician and discussing patients' goals and values were positively associated with giving an LST recommendation (B = 0.380, p = 0.031 and B = 0.400, p < 0.001, respectively) at peak-COVID-19. Conclusion: Providers who discuss patients' preferences and values are more likely to report giving a recommendation; both behaviors are markers of SDM during GoCCs. Our findings suggest potential areas for training in conducting patient-centered GoCCs.

Slipping through the cracks: Who is eligible but does not receive a healthcare provider recommendation for lung cancer screening?

INTRODUCTION

Receiving a healthcare provider recommendation to screen is an important predictor for whether individuals at high risk for lung cancer undergo lung cancer screening. Although sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics are associated with differential screening participation, it is unknown whether those characteristics are associated with receiving a healthcare provider recommendation for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used Facebook-targeted advertising to recruit a national sample of lung cancer screening-eligible adults (N = 515) who completed questionnaires on sociodemographic information (age, gender, race, marital status), socioeconomic characteristics (income, insurance status, education, rurality of residence), smoking status, and receiving a healthcare provider recommendation to screen. Pearson's chi-square tests and independent samples t-tests evaluated whether sociodemographic, socioeconomic, and smoking-related characteristics were associated significantly with receiving a healthcare provider recommendation to screen.

RESULTS

Higher household income, having insurance coverage, and being married were associated significantly with receiving a healthcare provider recommendation to screen (all p <.05). Age, gender, race, education, rurality of residence, and smoking status were not associated significantly with receiving a recommendation to screen.

DISCUSSION

Particular subgroups of individuals at high risk for lung cancer-including those with lower income, without insurance coverage, and who are not married-are less likely to receive a recommendation to screen from their healthcare provider, despite being at high risk for lung cancer and eligible for screening. Future research should test whether differential screening participation and low screening uptake could be addressed by clinician-focused interventions that encourage ubiquitous discussion and recommendation to undergo screening for people at high risk for lung cancer.

Provider and patient perspectives to improve lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography 5 years after Medicare coverage: a qualitative study

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women in the U.S., yet uptake of preventive cancer screening for people with a heavy smoking history remains low. This qualitative interview study of patients and providers from a large ambulatory healthcare system in northern and central California reevaluated perceptions of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LCS-LDCT) 5 years after Medicare coverage. We hypothesized that initial attitudes and barriers within the LCS-LDCT discussion and process have likely persisted with little change since Medicare coverage and we sought to understand how these attitudes continue to impact effective implementation and uptake of screening with the goal of identifying opportunities for improvement. Between 2019 and 2020, interviews were conducted with 10 primary care physicians and 30 patients using semi-structured interview guides. Providers and patients expressed that they were both aware and supportive of LCS-LDCT, a change from earlier studies, but continued to report little to no shared decision making nor use of a decision aid despite being Medicare requirements. Creation and incorporation of a single-page, graphic heavy decision aid may help address many of the persistent barriers around implementation for both providers and patients. Given recently expanded guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for LCS-LDCT screening and their coverage by Medicare, it is important for healthcare systems to understand provider and patient perceptions to further improve the implementation of LCS-LDCT to ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Relationship of patient-centered communication and cancer risk information avoidance: A social cognitive perspective

OBJECTIVE

We examined the relationship between patient-centered communication and cancer risk information avoidance and estimated the mediating role of self-efficacy in this relationship.

METHODS

Using nationally representative cross-sectional data from the U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey (N = 2033), this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between patient-centered communication and cancer risk information avoidance via correlation analysis, stepwise regression models, and mediation analysis.

RESULTS

Patient-centered communication was significantly negatively associated with cancer risk information avoidance (β= -0.09, p < 0.01) after controlling for gender, income, education, and cancer risk perception. Self-efficacy fully mediated the relationship of patient-centered communication with cancer risk information avoidance.

CONCLUSION

Patient-centered communication can improve patients' self-efficacy, thereby preventing them from avoiding cancer risk information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The negative relationship between patient-centered communication and cancer risk information avoidance substantiates that improving patient-centered communication is a promising approach to support caregivers in their activities, reduce patients' subjective cancer burden, and even improve their health. To address cancer-related issues, policymakers can consider interventions from the external environment and internal personal cognition perspectives.

Startup and implementation costs of a colorectal cancer screening tailored navigation research study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. Despite improvements in screening, testing for CRC is underutilized in some populations, suggesting a need to identify efficient test promotion strategies.

METHODS

Our intervention guided individuals from low-income, underserved communities into primary care clinics to receive CRC screening referrals. Community sites were randomized to education or education plus navigation. The Phase I community-to-clinic navigation outcome was clinic attendance; the Phase II clinic-to-screening navigation outcome was screening completion. We used micro-costing to determine costs necessary to replicate our project in a similar, non-research setting.

RESULTS

Over the 4-year project, startup costs tended to decrease as implementation costs increased. The largest component of startup costs (32 % of total) was community site recruitment. Implementation costs per class attendee were higher in the navigation group ($1084) than control ($798). But costs per participant who made a clinic appointment ($3573 versus $6292) and per participant who completed screening ($4083 versus $7640) were lower in the navigation group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our description of startup and implementation costs for this intervention provides decision makers with information needed to plan and budget for a similar project to guide individuals from community into clinics.

The Patient Perspective on Lung Cancer Screening and Health Disparities

Lung cancer screening is just starting to be implemented across the United States. Challenges to screening include access to care, awareness of the option for screening, stigma and implicit bias that are due to stigmatization of smoking, stigma of race, nihilism with lung cancer diagnosis viewed as a "death sentence," shared decision making, and underestimation of lung cancer risk. African Americans (AA) have the highest lung cancer mortality rate in the United States despite similar smoking rates as whites. AAs are diagnosed at a later stage, and there is a greater likelihood they will refuse treatment options when diagnosed. Additionally, fewer AAs were found to meet lung cancer screening eligibility criteria compared with whites because of lower tobacco exposure and younger age at time of diagnosis. Outreach and access for lung cancer screening in the AA community and other subpopulations at risk are critical to avoid further increasing disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality as lung cancer screening is implemented across the United States. The path forward requires implementing outreach programs and providing lung cancer screening in underserved communities at high risk for lung cancer; consideration of using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for screening selection criteria, including risk model screening selection; and developing interventions to address stigma, clinician implicit bias, and nihilism.

Understanding the decision to screen for lung cancer or not: A qualitative analysis

Background

Although new screening programmes with low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer have been implemented throughout the United States, screening uptake remains low and screening‐eligible persons' decisions to screen or not remain poorly understood.

Objective

To describe how current and former long‐term smokers explain their decisions regarding participation in lung cancer screening.

Design

Phone interviews using a semi‐structured interview guide were conducted to ask screening‐eligible persons to describe their decisions regarding screening with LDCT. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with conventional content analytic techniques.

Setting and participants

A subsample of 40 participants (20 who had screened and 20 who had not) were drawn from the sample of a survey study whose participants were recruited by Facebook targeted advertisements.

Results

The sample was divided into the following five groups based on their decisions regarding lung cancer screening participation: Group 1: no intention to be screened, Group 2: no deliberate consideration but somewhat open to being screened, Group 3: deliberate consideration but no definitive decision to be screened, Group 4: intention to be screened and Group 5: had been screened. Reasons for screening participation decisions are described for each group. Across groups, data revealed that screening‐eligible persons have a number of misconceptions regarding LDCT, including that a scan is needed only if one is symptomatic or has not had a chest x‐ray. A physician recommendation was a key influence on decisions to screen.

Discussion and conclusions

Education initiatives aimed at providers and long‐term smokers regarding LDCT is needed. Quality patient/provider communication is most likely to improve screening rates.

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis

OBJECTIVE

Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour is crucial to identifying potentially modifiable factors for future intervention. Qualititative work has explored attitudes and beliefs about lung cancer screening from the perspective of the participant, but the theoretically grounded factors that influence screening-eligible individuals to screen are unknown. We tested an explanatory framework for lung cancer screening participation from the individual's perspective.

METHODS

Data were collected as part of a sequential explanatory mixed methods study, the quantitative component of which is reported here. A national purposive sample of 515 screening-eligible participants in the United States was recruited using Facebook-targeted advertisement. Participants completed surveys assessing constructs of the Conceptual Model for Lung Cancer Screening Participation. Path analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables.

RESULTS

Path analyses revealed that a clinician recommendation to screen, higher self-efficacy scores, and lower mistrust scores were directly associated with screening participation (p < 0.05). However, the link between screening behaviour and self-efficacy appeared to be fully mediated by fatalism, lung cancer fear, lung cancer family history, knowledge of lung cancer risk and screening, income, clinician recommendation, and social influence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that medical mistrust, self-efficacy, and clinician recommendation were significant in the decision of whether to screen for lung cancer. These findings offer insight into potentially modifiable targets most appropriate on which to intervene. This understanding is critical to design meaningful clinician- and patient-focused interventions.

Lung Cancer Screening Participation: Developing a Conceptual Model to Guide Research

PURPOSE

To describe the development of a conceptual model to guide research focused on lung cancer screening participation from the perspective of the individual in the decision-making process.

METHODS

Based on a comprehensive review of empirical and theoretical literature, a conceptual model was developed linking key psychological variables (stigma, medical mistrust, fatalism, worry, and fear) to the health belief model and precaution adoption process model.

RESULTS

Proposed model concepts have been examined in prior research of either lung or other cancer screening behavior. To date, a few studies have explored a limited number of variables that influence screening behavior in lung cancer specifically. Therefore, relationships among concepts in the model have been proposed and future research directions presented.

CONCLUSION

This proposed model is an initial step to support theoretically based research. As lung cancer screening becomes more widely implemented, it is critical to theoretically guide research to understand variables that may be associated with lung cancer screening participation. Findings from future research guided by the proposed conceptual model can be used to refine the model and inform tailored intervention development.

Patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening pre- and post-guidelines: Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS)

OBJECTIVE

In 2013, the USPSTF issued a Grade B recommendation that long-term current and former smokers receive lung cancer screening. Shared decision-making is important for individuals considering screening, and patient-provider discussions an essential component of the process. We examined prevalence and predictors of lung cancer screening discussions pre- and post-USPSTF guidelines.

METHODS

Data were obtained from two cycles of the Health Information National Trends Survey (2012; 2014). The analyzed sample comprised screening-eligible current and former smokers with no personal history of lung cancer (n=746 in 2012; n=795 in 2014). Descriptive and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted; patient-reported discussion about lung cancer screening with provider was the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Contrary to expectations, patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening were more prevalent pre-guideline, but overall patient-provider discussions were low in both years (17% in 2012; 10% in 2014). Current smokers were more likely to have had a discussion than former smokers. Significant predictors of patient-provider discussions included family history of cancer and having healthcare coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of patient-provider discussions about lung cancer screening is suboptimal.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

There is a critical need for patient and provider education about shared decision-making and its importance in cancer screening decisions.

Perceived discrimination and cancer screening behaviors in US Hispanics: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study

PURPOSE

Perceived discrimination has been associated with lower adherence to cancer screening guidelines. We examined whether perceived discrimination was associated with adherence to breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening guidelines in US Hispanic/Latino adults.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study, including 5,313 Hispanic adults aged 18–74 from Bronx, NY, Chicago, IL, Miami, FL, and San Diego, CA, and those who were within appropriate age ranges for specific screening tests were included in the analysis. Cancer screening behaviors were assessed via self-report. Perceived discrimination was measured using the Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire. Confounder-adjusted multivariable polytomous logistic regression models assessed the association between perceived discrimination and adherence to cancer screening guidelines.

RESULTS

Among women eligible for screening, 72.1 % were adherent to cervical cancer screening guidelines and 71.3 %were adherent to breast cancer screening guidelines. In participants aged 50–74, 24.6 % of women and 27.0 % of men were adherent to fecal occult blood test guidelines; 43.5 % of women and 34.8 % of men were adherent to colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy guidelines; 41.0 % of men were adherent to prostate-specific antigen screening guidelines. Health insurance coverage, rather than perceived ethnic discrimination,was the variable most associated with receiving breast, cervical,colorectal, or prostate cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The influence of discrimination as a barrier to cancer screening may be modest among Hispanics/Latinos in urban US regions. Having health insurance facilitates cancer screening in this population. Efforts to increase cancer screening in Hispanics/Latinos should focus on increasing access to these services, especially among the uninsured.

Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended for all adults aged 50 to 75 years in the United States, there are racial and ethnic disparities in who receives screening. Individuals lacking appropriate CRC screening cite various reasons for nonadherence, including lack of provider recommendation for screening. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between patient race and lack of provider recommendation for CRC screening as the primary reason for screening nonadherence.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional observational study of individuals aged 50 to 75 years from the 2009 California Health Interview Survey who reported nonadherence to 2008 United States Preventive Service Task Force CRC screening guidelines. The outcome was self-report that the main reason for not undergoing CRC screening was lack of a physician recommendation ("non-recommendation") for screening. We performed logistic regression to determine significant predictors of non-recommendation, with particular attention to the role of race.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 5,793 unscreened subjects. Of the subjects, 19.1% reported that lack of a provider recommendation was the main reason for CRC nonscreening. African Americans (adjusted odds ratio (adj. OR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.05) and English-speaking Asians (adj. OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.24-2.20) were more likely than whites to report physician non-recommendation as the main reason for lack of screening. Asian non-English speakers, however, were less likely to report physician non-recommendation (adj. OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.91).

CONCLUSION

Racial minorities are less likely than whites to receive a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Future research should evaluate why race appears to influence provider recommendations to pursue CRC screening; this is an important step to reduce disparities in CRC screening and lessen the burden of CRC in the United States.

Patient navigation to increase colorectal cancer screening among Latino Medicare enrollees: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Latino Medicare enrollees report suboptimal rates of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) despite Medicare policies designed to improve CRCS access for older persons. Patient navigation (PN) may address many underlying barriers to CRCS, yet little is known about the effectiveness of PN to increase CRCS adherence among Latino Medicare enrollees.

METHODS

Using a randomized controlled trial study design, we evaluated tailored PN delivered outside of primary care settings as an intervention to increase CRCS adherence in this population. Intervention participants (n = 135) received tailored PN services which included education, counseling, and logistical support administered in their language of choice. Comparison participants (n = 168) received mailed cancer education materials. We compared CRCS rates between interventions and used multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of CRCS adherence for PN versus comparison groups after adjusting for covariates of interest.

RESULTS

More navigated than non-navigated participants became CRCS adherent during the study period (43.7 vs. 32.1%, p = 0.04). The odds of CRCS adherence were significantly higher for PN relative to comparison participants before and after adjusting for covariates (unadjusted OR 1.64, p = 0.04; adjusted OR 1.82, p = 0.02). Higher CRCS adherence rates were observed primarily in the uptake of endoscopic screening methods.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that PN delivered outside of the primary care environment is modestly effective in increasing CRCS adherence among Latino Medicare enrollees. This intervention strategy should be further evaluated as a complement to primary care-based PN and other care coordination strategies to increase adherence with CRCS and other evidence-based screenings among older Latinos.

Pathways to colonoscopy in the South: seeds of health disparities

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to highlight sociodemographic differences in how patients access colonoscopy.

METHODS

We invited all eligible patients (n = 2500) from 2 academy-affiliated colonoscopy centers in Alachua County, Florida (1 free standing, 1 hospital based), to participate in a precolonoscopy survey (September 2011-October 2013); patients agreeing to participate (n = 1841, response rate = 73.6%) received a $5.00 gift card.

RESULTS

We found sociodemographic differences in referral pathway, costs, and reasons associated with obtaining the procedure. Patients with the ideal pathway (referred by their regular doctor for age-appropriate screening) were more likely to be Black (compared with other minorities), male, high income, employed, and older. Having the colonoscopy because of symptoms was associated with being female, younger, and having lower income. We found significant differences for 1 previously underestimated barrier, having a spouse to accompany the patient to the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy differed by sociodemographics in our study, which implies that interventions based on a single facilitator will not be effective for all subgroups of a population.

Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: a randomized trial in safety-net clinics

CONTEXT

Low-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups.

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Adults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited.

INTERVENTION

The intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013).

RESULTS

The study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.

Myocardial infarction in singapore: ethnic variation in evidence-based therapy and its association with socioeconomic status, social network size and perceived stress level

BACKGROUND

Singapore is a multiethnic Asian country comprising predominantly Chinese, Malays, and Indians. We sought to study the disparities in evidence-based therapy for people from these three ethnic groups who were admitted to hospital with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We also examined its association with socioeconomic level and social network size and the influence on psychological stress level.

METHODS

In a prospective study, patients admitted with STEMI were recruited for a questionnaire survey. Relevant demographic and clinical data were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 364 patients were recruited and categorised based on ethnicity: Chinese (222 patients), Malays (72 patients), and Indians (70 patients). Malays and Indians were significantly younger than Chinese at the time of presentation with STEMI. Malays had significantly more children than the Chinese and Indians. Malays were in the lowest socioeconomic class, based on education level (P ≤ .02) and residential type (P ≤ .003). Most (87%) patients were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. There were no significant differences between Chinese, Malays, and Indians in accessibility to primary percutaneous coronary intervention, symptom-to-balloon time, door-to-balloon time, and prescription of evidence-based medications. Malays had larger social networks for information support (P ≤ .05) and financial support (P ≤ .04) than Chinese and Indians. There were no significant differences between the three ethnic groups in satisfaction with social support. The perceived stress level was higher among Malays and Indians than Chinese.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Malays were underprivileged in the socioeconomic level, no significant difference in healthcare disparities were observed among the three ethnic groups. This may be a reflection of the advancement in Singapore's healthcare system. The lower socioeconomic level may also explain the higher perceived stress level in Malays.

Factors explaining racial/ethnic disparities in rates of physician recommendation for colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Physician recommendation plays a crucial role in receiving endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study explored factors associated with racial/ethnic differences in rates of screening recommendation.

METHODS

Data on 5900 adults eligible for endoscopic screening were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey. Odds ratios of receiving an endoscopy recommendation were calculated for selected variables. Planned, sequenced logistic regressions were conducted to examine the extent to which socioeconomic and health care variables account for racial/ethnic disparities in recommendation rates.

RESULTS

Differential rates were observed for CRC screening and screening recommendations among racial/ethnic groups. Compared with Whites, Hispanics were 34% less likely (P < .01) and Blacks were 26% less likely (P < .05) to receive this recommendation. The main predictors that emerged in sequenced analysis were education for Hispanics and Blacks and income for Blacks. After accounting for the effects of usual source of care, insurance coverage, and education, the disparity reduced and became statistically insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic status and access to health care may explain major racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening recommendation rates.

Effectively Communicating Colorectal Cancer Screening Information to Primary Care Providers: Application for State, Tribe or Territory Comprehensive Cancer Control Coalitions

BACKGROUND

Patients are more likely to be screened for colorectal cancer if it is recommended by a health care provider. Therefore, it is imperative that providers have access to the latest screening guidelines.

PURPOSE

This practice-based project sought to identify Kentucky primary care providers' preferred sources and methods of receiving colorectal cancer information to improve state comprehensive cancer control provider outreach initiatives.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Discussion included preferred sources and methods of receiving updated screening guidelines, legislation, and statewide public awareness campaign materials.

RESULTS

Providers (N = 17) identified their preferred methods for receiving colorectal cancer information as: routine emails from trusted sources (colleagues, professional societies and research, and advocacy agencies), scientific journals, existing conferences, and the media.

DISCUSSION

When delivering colorectal cancer information to primary care providers, multiple approaches are needed. An ideal partner for dissemination of information is state comprehensive cancer control coalitions, considering their prioritization of colorectal cancer screening and existing networks of partners who were identified as trusted sources.

TRANSLATION TO HEALTH EDUCATION PRACTICE

Assessment of primary care providers' preferred methods and sources of receiving colorectal cancer information informs strategies for practice among comprehensive cancer control coalitions.

Patients whose physicians recommend colonoscopy and those who follow through

BACKGROUND

More than half of eligible individuals are not up-to-date with colon cancer screening.

PURPOSE

To assess the characteristics of those who received a colonoscopy screening recommendation and those who followed the physician recommendation.

METHODS

Patient self-administered questionnaire and medical record review in 16 private family physician practices.

RESULTS

From 8372 patients invited to participate, 685 were enrolled and had a medical record review; 219 (32%) had a colonoscopy recommendation and 86 (39%) received a colonoscopy. Independent factors associated with having a recommendation for colonoscopy were significantly younger in age (odds ratios [OR] = 1.6), higher incomes (annual income ≥$40 000 vs <$40 000; OR = 1.8), physician or nurse discussion about colon cancer tests (OR = 1.6), physical visit in the preceding 26 months (OR = 1.7), distant relative with colon cancer (OR = 2.4), and a medical diagnosis of hyperlipidemia (OR = 2.1). Independent factors associated with following through on colonoscopy after a recommendation were age ≥65 years (OR = 0.3), male patient (OR = 0.4), and feeling that colon cancer screening is very important (OR = 3.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic factors are associated with receipt of a colonoscopy recommendation. Fewer than one third of patients had documentation of a physician colonoscopy recommendation and of those, less than half followed through.

Perception of colonoscopy benefits: a gap in patient knowledge?

Our study aimed to determine, for patients who had undergone recent colonoscopy, associations between specific colonoscopy patient characteristics, exam characteristics and patients' perception of colonoscopy reducing their risk of dying from colorectal cancer. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data (2004-2008) from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, consisting of a Self-report Questionnaire, Colonoscopy Report form, and a Follow-up Questionnaire, which measured agreement responses to the statement, "Having a colonoscopy decreased my chances of dying from colon cancer". Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to assess differences in patient responses by patient and colonoscopy characteristics. A majority of patients (N=5,672, 81%) agreed that having a colonoscopy decreased their chances of dying from colon cancer. Patients with a personal history of polyps were more likely to agree that colonoscopy reduced their chances of dying compared to patients without prior polypectomy [OR (95% CI) =1.34 (1.06, 1.69)] and patients with a family history of colorectal cancer were 33% more likely to agree to the statement than those without a family history [OR (95% CI) =1.33 (1.12, 1.58)]. Personal history of polyps and family history of colorectal cancer are significant predictors of patients' positive perception of colonoscopy, suggesting that personal experience, rather than the potential preventive effect of colonoscopy itself, may influence the perceived benefit of colonoscopy. Intervention efforts should be made to effectively disseminate knowledge of the preventive benefit of colonoscopy.

Trends in colorectal cancer screening with home-based fecal occult blood tests in adults ages 50 to 64 years, 2000-2008

BACKGROUND

National surveys have reported declines in rates of home-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the last decade. However, socioeconomic status (SES) and racial/ethnic differences in FOBT trends and their changes relative to endoscopic CRC screening have not been evaluated.

METHODS

Data on adults ages 50 to 64 years from the 2000, 2005, and 2008 National Health Interview Surveys were used. Weighted analyses and multivariate logistic regression were used to study trends in the use of FOBT and endoscopic CRC screening during this period.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2008, significant declines in FOBT prevalence occurred in higher SES groups, but not in lower SES groups (uninsured and publicly insured, those without a usual source of care, lower educated, lower income, and immigrants to the United States) or Hispanics. Endoscopic CRC screening during the period studied consistently increased in all higher SES subgroups. In contrast, few lower SES subgroups (publicly insured, lower educated, near poor individuals, long-term immigrants) and Hispanics experienced increases in CRC endoscopic screening, and these increases were smaller than those observed in higher SES subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Socially and economically disadvantaged groups experienced little or no change in FOBT prevalence, and few of these groups experienced contemporaneous increases in CRC endoscopic screening. These trends suggest the continued availability and acceptance of FOBT in these groups. If national CRC screening goals are to be achieved in populations with lower access to colonoscopy, then annual high-sensitivity FOBT should be promoted as an immediately accessible and viable alternative.

Educational level and risk of colorectal cancer in EPIC with specific reference to tumor location

Existing evidence is inconclusive on whether socioeconomic status (SES) and educational inequalities influence colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and whether low or high SES/educational level is associated with developing CRC. The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between educational level and CRC. We studied data from 400,510 participants in the EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition) study, of whom 2,447 developed CRC (colon: 1,551, rectum: 896, mean follow-up 8.3 years). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis stratified by age, gender and center, and adjusted for potential confounders were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Relative indices of inequality (RII) for education were estimated using Cox regression models. We conducted separate analyses for tumor location, gender and geographical region. Compared with participants with college/university education, participants with vocational secondary education or less had a nonsignificantly lower risk of developing CRC. When further stratified for tumor location, adjusted risk estimates for the proximal colon were statistically significant for primary education or less (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.57-0.94) and for vocational secondary education (HR 0.76, 95%CI 0.58-0.98). The inverse association between low education and CRC risk was particularly found in women and Southern Europe. These associations were statistically significant for CRC, for colon cancer and for proximal colon cancer. In conclusion, CRC risk, especially in the proximal colon, is lower in subjects with a lower educational level compared to those with a higher educational level. This association is most pronounced in women and Southern Europe.

Cancer screening barriers for community-based older Hispanics and Caucasians

Despite advances in screening and early detection, ethnic minority populations, ages 65 and older, are less likely than Caucasians to participate in cancer screening services. Empirical research indicates that older ethnic minorities have cultural values that influence their behaviors. Addressing culturally relevant communication to better understand those values may increase participation in cancer screening. The study reported is a secondary analysis of qualitative data gathered from focus groups. Utilizing an interdisciplinary analytical lens, we compared older Hispanic and Caucasian's cultural values and their screening behaviors. Suggested psychosocial interventions are discussed to assist providers in their ongoing efforts to promote cancer screening.

Examining the pathways linking lower socioeconomic status and advanced melanoma

BACKGROUND

Low socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with more advanced melanoma at diagnosis and decreased survival. Exploring the pathways linking lower SES and thicker melanoma will help guide public and professional strategies to reduce deaths.

METHODS

The authors surveyed 566 newly diagnosed patients at Stanford University Medical Center, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, and University of Michigan. SES was assessed by education level (high school/general education degree or less [HS], associate/technical school degree, or ≥college graduate). All data was obtained by self-report among patients within three months of their diagnosis.

RESULTS

HS-educated individuals were significantly more likely than college graduates to believe that melanoma was not very serious (odds ratio [OR], 2.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79-4.71) and were less likely to know the asymmetry, borders (irregular), color (variegated), and diameter (>6 mm) (ABCD) melanoma rule or the difference between melanoma and ordinary skin growths (OR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.23-0.52] and 0.26 [95% CI, 0.16-0.41] respectively). Physicians were less likely to have ever told HS-educated versus college-educated individuals they were at risk for skin cancer (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.71) or instructed them on how to examine their skin for signs of melanoma (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63). HS-educated individuals were less likely to have received a physician skin examination within the year before diagnosis (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Decreased melanoma risk perception and knowledge among low-SES individuals and decreased physician communication regarding skin examinations of these individuals may be key components of the consistently observed socioeconomic gradient in mortality. The current findings suggest the need to raise melanoma awareness among lower-SES patients and to increase physician awareness of socioeconomic disparities in clinical communication and care.

Screening adherence for colorectal cancer among immigrant Hispanic women

PURPOSE

We sought to assess factors related to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence among immigrant, Hispanic women in Harlem, New York City.

METHOD

Adherence for colonoscopy and fecal occult blood test (FQBT) screening was measured among 255 women based on self-reported screening behaviors using American Cancer Society guidelines.

RESULTS

Univariate results showed that age, language of the interview (English/Spanish), years in the United States, physician recommendation for either test, marital status (living alone/living with someone), and mammography adherence were associated with CRC screening adherence (p's < .05). In the multivariate analysis, having an age greater than 65 years, being interviewed in Spanish, having lived in the United States longer, having a regular doctor and a physician recommendation, and being currently adherent for mammography were associated with higher CRC screening adherence.

CONCLUSION

Among this sample, there proved to be differences between having ever been screened and adherence with a greater proportion of women having ever completed either colonoscopy and/or FOBT compared to women who were adherent (72.9% vs 58.8%). Therefore, it is important to determine factors associated with adherence, not just screening utilization, in order to design strategies to increase adherence among immigrant Hispanic women.

Adherence to physician recommendation to colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy among Hispanics

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among Hispanics in the United States (US), yet the use of CRC screening is low in this population. Physician recommendation has consistently shown to improve CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics of Hispanic patients who adhere or do not adhere to their physician's recommendation to have a screening colonoscopy.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study featuring face-to-face interviews by culturally matched interviewers was conducted in primary healthcare clinics and community centers in New York City.

PARTICIPANTS

Four hundred Hispanic men and women aged 50 or older, at average risk for CRC, were interviewed. Two hundred and eighty (70%) reported receipt of a physician's recommendation for screening colonoscopy and are included in this study.

MAIN MEASURES

Dependent variable: self report of having had screening colonoscopy.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

sociodemographics, healthcare and health promotion factors.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 280 participants, 25% did not adhere to their physician's recommendation. Factors found to be associated with non-adherence were younger age, being born in the US, preference for completing interviews in English, higher acculturation, and greater reported fear of colonoscopy testing. The source of colonoscopy recommendation (whether it came from their usual healthcare provider or not, and whether it occurred in a community or academic healthcare facility) for CRC screening was not associated with adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that potentially identifiable subgroups of Hispanics may be less likely to follow their physician recommendation to have a screening colonoscopy and thus may decrease their likelihood of an early diagnosis and prompt treatment. Raising physicians' awareness to such patients' characteristics could help them anticipate patients who may be less adherent and who may need additional encouragement to undergo screening colonoscopy.

How do rural health care providers and patients view barriers to colorectal cancer screening? Insights from appalachian kentucky

This article reports findings from a qualitative study that explored the attitudes and beliefs concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among patients and health care providers in Appalachian Kentucky. Results from 5 focus groups are discussed here: 3 with primary care providers and 2 with patients. Although there are some areas of agreement, there are marked differences between the perceptions of Appalachian health care providers and participants regarding CRC screening. This article compares and contrasts those perceptions and provides suggestions for culturally competent practice and culturally relevant research to improve CRC screening in this vulnerable population.

The association between state mandates of colorectal cancer screening coverage and colorectal cancer screening utilization among US adults aged 50 to 64 years with health insurance

Background

Several states in the US have passed laws mandating coverage of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests by health insurance plans. The impact of these state mandates on the use of colorectal cancer screening has not been evaluated among an age-eligible target population with access to care (i.e., health care insurance coverage).

Methods

We collected information on state mandates implemented by December 31, 2008 and used data on insured adults aged 50 and 64 years from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System between 2002 and 2008 to classify individual-level exposure to state mandates for at least 1 year. Multivariate logistic regression models (with state- and year- fixed effects, and patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics) were used to estimate the effect of state mandates on recent endoscopy screening (either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy during the past year).

Results

From 1999-2008, twenty-two states in the US, including the District of Columbia passed comprehensive laws requiring health insurance coverage of CRC screening including endoscopy tests. Residence in states with CRC screening coverage mandates in place for at least 1 year was associated with a 1.4 percentage point increase in the probability of utilization of recent endoscopy (i.e., 17.5% screening rates in those with mandates versus 16.1% in those without, Adjusted OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.02 - 1.20, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

The findings suggest a positive, albeit small, impact of state mandates on the use of recent CRC screening endoscopy among the target eligible population with health insurance. However, more research is needed to evaluate potential effects of mandates across health insurance types while including controls for other system-level factors (e.g. endoscopy and primary care capacity). National health insurance reform should strive towards a system that expands access to recommended CRC screening tests.

Racial/ethnic patterns of uptake of colorectal screening, National Health Interview Survey 2000-2008

BACKGROUND

Lower access and/or utilization of colorectal screening are thought to be major contributors to the higher proportion of cancers among African Americans and Hispanics that are diagnosed at advanced stages of disease and the poorer outcomes observed among Hispanics and African Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites. We examine rates of initiation, utilization of specific screening modalities, adherence tocolorectal screening guidelines, and rate of uptake of colonoscopy among age-eligible African Americans, Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites.

METHODS

Data on 46145 African American, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic white survey respondents to the 2000 and 2005 Cancer Control Modules and the 2003 and 2008 Sample Adult Cores of the National Health Interview Surveys are examined in these analyses.

RESULTS

There was a modest increase in the initiation of colorectal screening among non-Hispanic whites, only and racial/ethnic disparities colorectal screening utilization persisted. The proportion of respondents for whom colonoscopy was the most complete guideline consistent exam received increased over time, while use of other modalities decreased among all racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSION

More effort must be made to increase colorectal screening among the U.S. population in general but particularly among racial/ethnic minority populations. With the increased attention on prevention, there is also a need to increase knowledge of the strengths and limitations of specific screening modalities and the need to receive screening exams within recommended time intervals among both patients and providers making screening recommendations.