Effectiveness of a primary care practice intervention for increasing colorectal cancer screening in Appalachian Kentucky

Feasibility and efficacy of a novel audiovisual tool to increase colorectal cancer screening among rural Appalachian Kentucky adults

Introduction

Residents of Appalachian regions in Kentucky experience increased colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. While population-based screening methods, such as fecal immunochemical tests (FITs), can reduce many screening barriers, written instructions to complete FIT can be challenging for some individuals. We developed a novel audiovisual tool ("talking card") to educate and motivate accurate FIT completion and assessed its feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy.

Materials and methods

We collected data on the talking card via: (1) cross-sectional surveys exploring perceptions of images, messaging, and perceived utility; (2) follow-up focus groups centered on feasibility and acceptability; and (3) efficacy testing in community-based FIT distribution events, where we assessed FIT completion rate, number of positive vs. negative screens, demographic characteristics of participants, and primary drivers of FIT completion.

Results

Across the three study phases, 692 individuals participated. Survey respondents positively identified with the card's sounds and images, found it highly acceptable, and reported high-to-very high self-efficacy and response efficacy for completing FIT, with nearly half noting greater likelihood to complete screening after using the tool. Focus group participants confirmed the acceptability of the individuals featured on the card. Nearly 75% of participants provided a FIT accurately completed it, with most indicating the talking card, either alone or combined with another strategy, helped with completion.

Discussion

To reduce CRC screening disparities among Appalachian Kentuckians, population-based screening using contextually relevant implementation strategies must be used alongside clinic-based education. The talking card represents a novel and promising strategy to promote screening uptake in both clinical and community settings.

Interventions to improve primary healthcare in rural settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Residents of rural areas have poorer health status, less healthy behaviours and higher mortality than urban dwellers, issues which are commonly addressed in primary care. Strengthening primary care may be an important tool to improve the health status of rural populations.

OBJECTIVE

Synthesize and categorize studies that examine interventions to improve rural primary care.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Experimental or observational studies published between January 1, 1996 and December 2022 that include an historical or concurrent control comparison.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase.

CHARTING METHODS

We extracted and charted data by broad category (quality, access and efficiency), study design, country of origin, publication year, aim, health condition and type of intervention studied. We assigned multiple categories to a study where relevant.

RESULTS

372 papers met our inclusion criteria, divided among quality (82%), access (20%) and efficiency (13%) categories. A majority of papers were completed in the USA (40%), Australia (15%), China (7%) or Canada (6%). 35 (9%) papers came from countries in Africa. The most common study design was an uncontrolled before-and-after comparison (32%) and only 24% of studies used randomized designs. The number of publications each year has increased markedly over the study period from 1-2/year in 1997-99 to a peak of 49 papers in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite substantial inequity in health outcomes associated with rural living, very little attention is paid to rural primary care in the scientific literature. Very few studies of rural primary care use randomized designs.

Evaluating variations in the barriers to colorectal cancer screening associated with telehealth use in rural U.S. Pacific Northwest

PURPOSE

The incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) remain consistently high in rural populations. Telehealth can improve screening uptake by overcoming individual and environmental disadvantages in rural communities. The present study aimed to characterize varying barriers to CRC screening between rural individuals with and without experience in using telehealth.

METHOD

The cross-sectional study surveyed 250 adults aged 45-75 residing in rural U.S. states of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington from June to September 2022. The associations between CRC screening and four sets of individual and environmental factors specific to rural populations (i.e., demographic characteristics, accessibility, patient-provider factors, and psychological factors) were assessed among respondents with and without past telehealth adoption.

RESULT

Respondents with past telehealth use were more likely to screen if they were married, had a better health status, had experienced discrimination in health care, and had perceived susceptibility, screening efficacy, and cancer fear, but less likely to screen when they worried about privacy or had feelings of embarrassment, pain, and discomfort. Among respondents without past telehealth use, the odds of CRC screening decreased with busy schedules, travel burden, discrimination in health care, and lower perceived needs.

CONCLUSION

Rural individuals with and without previous telehealth experience face different barriers to CRC screening. The finding suggests the potential efficacy of telehealth in mitigating critical barriers to CRC screening associated with social, health care, and built environments of rural communities.

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review

AIM

To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs.

BACKGROUND

Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type.

FINDINGS

Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia: protocol for a group randomized, delayed intervention trial

Appalachian regions of Kentucky and Ohio are hotspots for colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in the USA. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality; however, screening uptake is needed, especially in these underserved geographic areas. Implementation science offers strategies to address this challenge. The aim of the current study was to conduct multi-site, transdisciplinary research to evaluate and improve CRC screening processes using implementation science strategies. The study consists of two phases (Planning and Implementation). In the Planning Phase, a multilevel assessment of 12 health centers (HC) (one HC from each of the 12 Appalachian counties) was conducted by interviewing key informants, creating community profiles, identifying HC and community champions, and performing HC data inventories. Two designated pilot HCs chose CRC evidence-based interventions to adapt and implement at each level (i.e., patient, provider, HC, and community) with evaluation relative to two matched control HCs. During the Implementation Phase, study staff will repeat the rollout process in HC and community settings in a randomized, staggered fashion in the remaining eight counties/HCs. Evaluation will include analyses of electronic health record data and provider and county surveys. Rural HCs have been reluctant to participate in research because of concerns about capacity; however, this project should demonstrate that research does not need to be burdensome and can adapt to local needs and HC abilities. If effective, this approach could be disseminated to HC and community partners throughout Appalachia to encourage the uptake of effective interventions to reduce the burden of CRC.

Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens

PURPOSE

Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy.

RESULTS

Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.

Examining Psychological and Knowledge Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Appalachian Kentucky

While recent rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have improved in Appalachian Kentucky due to public health efforts, they remain lower compared to both KY as a whole, and the USA. Suboptimal screening rates represent a missed opportunity to engage in early detection and prevention. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact that lack of knowledge has on psychological barriers (e.g., fear and embarrassment) to CRC screening as well as the potential effect of a psychosocial intervention to reduce these barriers. Participants were recruited through faith-based organizations and other community sites. After randomizing participants to either an early or delayed group, a faith-based group education and motivational interviewing intervention was administered. Existing and pilot tested instruments were used to assess knowledge and potential psychological barriers. Data were analyzed using paired t tests and linear regression. We hypothesized that (1) psychological barriers are associated with inadequate knowledge and (2) the intervention, by improving knowledge, could reduce these barriers and increase screening rates. There was a small but significant reduction in psychological barriers (-0.11, p value = 0.015) and moderate increases in CRC knowledge scores (+0.17, p value = 0.06). There was no evidence that the intervention affected these measures (+0.10, p value = 0.58). The relationship between lower barrier scores and increased knowledge was significant at follow up (-0.05, 95% CI (-0.09, -0.00)). An increase in CRC knowledge was correlated with a small but significant decrease in psychological barriers, although there was no evidence that these changes were associated with one another. Future cognitive-based interventions may be effective in increasing CRC knowledge and reducing barriers, but new intervention approaches should be considered.

Cluster-randomized trials of cancer screening interventions: Has use of appropriate statistical methods increased over time?

BACKGROUND

In a cluster randomized trial, groups of individuals (e.g., clinics, schools) are randomized to conditions. The design and analysis of cluster randomized trials can require more care than individually randomized trials. Past reviews have noted deficiencies in the use of appropriate statistical methods for such trials.

METHODS

We reviewed cluster randomized trials of cancer screening interventions published 1995-2019 to determine whether appropriate statistical methods had been used for sample size calculation and outcome analysis and whether they reported intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values. This work expanded a previous review of articles published 1995-2010.

RESULTS

Our search identified 88 articles published 1995-2020 that reported outcomes of cluster randomized trials of breast, cervix, and colorectal cancer screening interventions. There was increased reporting of the trials' sample size calculations over time, with the percentage increasing from 31% in 1995-2004 to 77% in 2014-2019. However, the percentage of calculations failing to account for cluster randomization did not change over time and was 17% of studies in 2014-2019. There was a nonsignificant trend towards increased use of outcome analysis methods that accounted for the cluster randomized design. However, in lower impact journals, use of appropriate analysis methods was only 80% in 2014-2019. Only 33% of studies reported ICC values in 2014-2019.

CONCLUSION

For cluster randomized trials with cancer screening outcomes, there have been improvements in the reporting of sample size calculations but methodological and reporting deficiencies persist. Efforts to disseminate, adopt and report the use of appropriate statistical methodologies are still needed.

Building Cancer Prevention and Control Research Capacity in Rural Appalachian Kentucky Primary Care Clinics During COVID-19: Development and Adaptation of a Multilevel Colorectal Cancer Screening Project

This study describes the development of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening multilevel intervention with four primary care clinics in rural Appalachian Kentucky. We also discuss barriers experienced by the clinics during COVID-19 and how clinic limitations and needs informed project modifications. Four primary care clinics were recruited, key informant interviews with clinic providers were conducted, electronic health record (EHR) capacity to collect data related to CRC screening and follow-up was assessed, and a series of meetings were held with clinic champions to discuss implementation of strategies to impact clinic CRC screening rates. Analysis of interviews revealed multilevel barriers to CRC screening. Patient-level barriers included fatalism, competing priorities, and financial and literacy concerns. The main provider- and clinic-level barriers were provider preference for colonoscopy over stool-based testing and EHR tracking concerns. Clinics selected strategies to address barriers, but the onset of COVID-19 necessitated modifications to these strategies. Due to COVID-19, changes in clinic staffing and workflow occurred, including provider furloughs, a state-mandated pause in elective procedures, and an increase in telehealth. Clinics adapted screening strategies to match changing needs, including shifting from paper to digital educational tools and using telehealth to increase annual wellness visits for screening promotion. While significant delays persist for scheduling colonoscopies, clinics were encouraged to promote stool-based tests as a primary screening modality for average-risk patients.

A Framework for Equitable Partnerships to Promote Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Settings

Rural populations continue to experience persistent cancer disparities compared with urban populations particularly in cancers that can be prevented or detected early through screening and vaccination. Although the National Cancer Institute and the larger cancer research community have identified rural community partnerships as the foundation for reducing the disparities, we have identified limited application of community-based participatory research in cancer prevention and control research. Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model and our collective experience, we provide a framework for a community-cancer center partnership that focuses on promoting health equity. In this commentary, we articulate that the partnership process must foster capacity for communities and cancer centers, strive for rural representation in clinical trials and biobanking, build a pipeline for dissemination and implementation research, and create a bidirectional flow of knowledge between communities and academic institutions. Authentic partnerships with rural communities should be the ultimate goal of cancer centers, and the process described in this commentary can serve as an initial platform to build capacity and continue to strive toward that goal.

Impact of COVID-19 on Screening Rates for Colorectal, Breast, and Cervical Cancer: Practice Feedback From a Quality Improvement Project in Primary Care

PURPOSE

Three New York State practice-based research networks provided quality improvement strategies to improve screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal (BCC) cancers in safety-net primary care, over 7 years. In the final year (Y7), the United States experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on BCC cancer screening rates was assessed qualitatively.

METHODS

A total of 12 primary care practices participated in Y7 of the quality improvement project. BCC cancer screening rates at year beginning and end were assessed. Practice staff were asked about how COVID-19 impacted screening. Average pre/postintervention screening rates and qualitative thematic analysis regarding how COVID-19 impacted cancer screening were ascertained.

RESULTS

In Y7, there was an increase in breast cancer and a decrease in colorectal and cervical cancer screening rates compared to the previous project year. Many practices were able to continue pre-COVID-19 cancer screening processes. Overall, practices reported loss of staff, changes in data entry, and a shift from preventive screening to care of sick patients. Telehealth was vital for practices to continue serving patients but had a less positive impact on patients with financial/technological disadvantages. BCC cancer screenings were impacted at various levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted primary care practice cancer screening; however, some practices were able to mitigate effects by shifting focus to processes supporting screening outside of in-person office visits.

Increasing Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screenings: A Qualitative Assessment of Barriers and Promoters in Safety-Net Practices

PURPOSE

Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal in underserved populations. A 7-year quality improvement (QI) project implemented academic detailing and practice facilitation in safety-net primary care practices to increase cancer screening rates. This manuscript assesses barriers and promoters.

METHODS

Primary care practices providing care to underserved patients were recruited in New York cities Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Enrollment totaled 31 practices, with 12 practices participating throughout. Annually, each practice received 6 months of practice facilitation support for development and implementation of evidence-based interventions to increase screening rates for the three cancer types. At the end of each practice facilitation period, focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted with participating personnel. Content analysis was performed annually to identify barriers and promoters. A comprehensive final analysis was performed at project end.

RESULTS

Barriers included system-level (inconsistent communication with specialists, electronic health record system transitions, ownership changes) and practice-level challenges (staff turnover, inconsistent data entry, QI fatigue) that compound patient-level challenges of transportation, cost, and health literacy. Cyclical barriers like staff turnover returned despite attempts to resolve them, while successful implementation was promoted by reducing patients' structural barriers, adapting interventions to existing practice priorities, and enacting officewide policies. During the QI project, practices became aware of the impact of social determinants of health on patients' screening decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The project's longitudinal design enabled identification of key barriers that reduced accuracy of practices' screening rates and increased risk of patients falling through the cracks. Identified promoters can help sustain interventions to increase screenings.

Improving Cancer Screening Rates in Primary Care via Practice Facilitation and Academic Detailing: A Multi-PBRN Quality Improvement Project

PURPOSE

In the United States, cancer screening rates are often below national targets. This project implemented practice facilitation and academic detailing aimed at increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates in safety-net primary care practices.

METHODS

Three practice-based research networks across western and central New York State partnered to provide quality improvement strategies on breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Pre/postintervention screening rates for all participating practices were collected annually, as were means across all practices over 7 years. Simple ordinary least squares linear regression was used to calculate the trend for each cancer type and test for statistical significance (ie, P≤0.05), using the ordinal time point as a fixed effect.

RESULTS

An overall increase in mean screening rates was seen over the duration of this project for colorectal (24.6% preintervention to 48.0% in year 7 of intervention; P<0.001) and breast cancer (37.0% preintervention to 48.6% in year 7; P=0.460). Mean cervical cancer screening rates decreased (35.5% preintervention to 31.4% in year 7; P=0.209). Success in increasing screening rates varied across regions of New York State.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice facilitation and academic detailing were successful in significantly increasing, on average, colorectal cancer screening rate. Cervical cancer screening showed an overall decrease, likely due to difficulties for primary care practices in tracking and implementation, as many patients seek this service at outside gynecology facilities. Regional differences, guideline changes, and practice reorganization each may have played a part in observed trends. A standardization of queries being used to pull screening rates is an important step in increasing the reliability of these data.

Academic detailing increases prescription drug monitoring program use among primary care practices

OBJECTIVE

Clinical review of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) is considered a valuable tool for opioid prescribing risk mitigation; however, PDMP use is often low, even in states with mandatory registration and use policies. The objective was to evaluate the impact of an academic detailing (AD) outreach intervention on PDMP use among primary care prescribers.

METHODS

AD intervention was delivered to primary care based controlled substance prescribers (N = 87) and their associated PDMP delegates (n = 42) by a clinical pharmacist as 1 component of a large-scale, statewide initiative to improve opioid prescribing safety. Prescriber PDMP use behavior was assessed by prescriber self-report and analysis of objective 2016-2018 PDMP data regarding the number of monthly report requests. We compared means between pre- and postintervention using a paired t test and plotted the monthly average reports over time to assess the trend of mean reports over time. Generalized linear mixed model with a negative binomial distribution was used to assess the difference in the trend and magnitude of the combined count of reports for the entire sample and prescriber subsets that were segmented on the basis of the adoption status of PDMP.

RESULTS

The monthly mean of reports by combined prescribers and delegates significantly increased after the AD intervention (mean 28.1 pre vs. 53.0 post; P < 0.001), with the increase in delegate reports (mean 17.1 pre vs. 60.0 post; P < 0.001) driving the overall increase. Reports were requested 40.4 times more often than in the preintervention period (P < 0.001). Patterns of pre- to postchanges in mean monthly report requests differed by baseline PDMP adoption status.

CONCLUSION

The AD intervention was transformative in facilitating practice change to use delegates to run reports. Visits with both prescribers and delegates, including hands-on PDMP training and registration assistance, can be viewed as beneficial for practice facilitation.

Development of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in Appalachia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in Appalachian regions of the United States than in non-Appalachian regions. Given the availability of various screening modalities, there is critical need for culturally relevant interventions addressing multiple socioecological levels to reduce the regional CRC burden. In this report, we describe the development and baseline findings from year 1 of "Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia," a 5-year, National Cancer Institute Cancer MoonshotSM-funded multilevel intervention (MLI) project to increase screening in Appalachian Kentucky and Ohio primary care clinics.

METHODS

Project development was theory-driven and included the establishment of both an external Scientific Advisory Board and a Community Advisory Board to provide guidance in conducting formative activities in two Appalachian counties: one in Kentucky and one in Ohio. Activities included identifying and describing the study communities and primary care clinics, selecting appropriate evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and conducting a pilot test of MLI strategies addressing patient, provider, clinic, and community needs.

RESULTS

Key informant interviews identified multiple barriers to CRC screening, including fear of screening, test results, and financial concerns (patient level); lack of time and competing priorities (provider level); lack of reminder or tracking systems and staff burden (clinic level); and cultural issues, societal norms, and transportation (community level). With this information, investigators then offered clinics a menu of EBIs and strategies to address barriers at each level. Clinics selected individually tailored MLIs, including improvement of patient education materials, provision of provider education (resulting in increased knowledge, p = .003), enhancement of electronic health record (EHR) systems and development of clinic screening protocols, and implementation of community CRC awareness events, all of which promoted stool-based screening (i.e., FIT or FIT-DNA). Variability among clinics, including differences in EHR systems, was the most salient barrier to EBI implementation, particularly in terms of tracking follow-up of positive screening results, whereas the development of clinic-wide screening protocols was found to promote fidelity to EBI components.

CONCLUSIONS

Lessons learned from year 1 included increased recognition of variability among the clinics and how they function, appreciation for clinic staff and provider workload, and development of strategies to utilize EHR systems. These findings necessitated a modification of study design for subsequent years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Trial NCT04427527 is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov and was registered on June 11, 2020.

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.

Factors Contributing to Delay in Specialist Care After Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis in Kentucky

BACKGROUND

Abundant studies have associated colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment delay with advanced diagnosis and worse mortality. Delay in seeking specialist is a contributor to CRC treatment delay. The goal of this study is to investigate contributing factors to 14-d delay from diagnosis of CRC on colonoscopy to the first specialist visit in the state of Kentucky.

METHODS

The Kentucky Cancer Registry (KCR) database linked with health administrative claims data was queried to include adult patients diagnosed with stage I-IV CRC from January 2007 to December 2012. The dates of the last colonoscopy and the first specialist visit were identified through the claims. Bivariate and logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with delay to CRC specialist visit.

RESULTS

A total of 3927 patients from 100 hospitals in Kentucky were included. Approximately, 19% of patients with CRC visited a specialist more than 14 d after CRC detection on colonoscopy. Delay to specialist (DTS) was found more likely in patients with Medicaid insurance (OR 3.1, P < 0.0001), low and moderate education level (OR 1.4 and 1.3, respectively, P = 0.0127), and stage I CRC (OR 1.5, P < 0.0001). There was a higher percentage of delay to specialist among Medicaid patients (44.0%) than Medicare (18.0%) and privately insured patients (18.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified Medicaid insurance, low education attainment, and early stage CRC diagnosis as independent risk factors associated with 14-d delay in seeking specialist care after CRC detection on colonoscopy.

Prostate Cancer Incidence and Aggressiveness in Appalachia versus Non-Appalachia Populations in Pennsylvania by Urban-Rural Regions, 2004-2014

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined prostate cancer incidence and aggressiveness in urban-rural Appalachian populations. We examined these rates in urban-rural Appalachia and non-Appalachia Pennsylvania (PA), and the association between these areas and more aggressive prostate cancer at diagnosis.

METHODS

Men, ages ≥ 40 years with a primary prostate cancer diagnosis, were identified from the 2004-2014 Pennsylvania Cancer Registry. Age-adjusted incidence rates for prostate cancer and more aggressive prostate cancer at diagnosis were calculated by urban-rural Appalachia status. Multivariable Poisson regressions were conducted. Multiple logistic regressions were used to examine the association between the geographic areas and more aggressive prostate cancer, after adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

There were 94,274 cases, ages 40-105 years, included. Urban non-Appalachia had the highest 2004-2014 age-adjusted incidence rates of prostate cancer and more aggressive prostate cancer (293.56 and 96.39 per 100,000 men, respectively) and rural Appalachia had the lowest rates (256.48 and 80.18 per 100,000 men, respectively). Among the cases, urban Appalachia were more likely [OR = 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.17] and rural Appalachia were less likely (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.87-0.97) to have more aggressive prostate cancer at diagnosis compared with urban non-Appalachia.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower incidence rates and the proportion of aggressive disease in rural Appalachia may be due to lower prostate cancer screening rates. More aggressive prostate cancer at diagnosis among the cases in urban Appalachia may be due to exposures that are prevalent in the region.

IMPACT

Identifying geographic prostate cancer disparities will provide information to design programs aimed at reducing risk and closing the disparity gap.

Achieving Health Equity in Preventive Services: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Pathways to Prevention Workshop

BACKGROUND

Disadvantaged populations in the United States experience disparities in the use of preventive health services.

PURPOSE

To examine effects of barriers that create health disparities in 10 recommended preventive services for adults, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce them.

DATA SOURCES

English-language searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and the Veterans Affairs Health Services database (1 January 1996 to 5 July 2019); reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials, observational studies with comparison groups, and systematic reviews of populations adversely affected by disparities that reported effects of barriers on use of any of the 10 selected preventive services or that reported the effectiveness of interventions to reduce disparities in use of a preventive service by improving intermediate or clinical outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dual extraction and assessment of study quality, strength of evidence, and evidence applicability.

DATA SYNTHESIS

No studies reported effects of provider-specific barriers on preventive service use. Eighteen studies reporting effects of patient barriers, such as insurance coverage or lack of a regular provider, on preventive service use had mixed and inconclusive findings. Studies of patient-provider interventions (n = 12), health information technologies (n = 11), and health system interventions (n = 88) indicated higher cancer screening rates with patient navigation; telephone calls, prompts, and other outreach methods; reminders involving lay health workers; patient education; risk assessment, counseling, and decision aids; screening checklists; community engagement; and provider training. Single studies showed that clinician-delivered and technology-assisted interventions improved rates of smoking cessation and weight loss, respectively.

LIMITATION

Insufficient or low strength of evidence and applicability for most interventions except patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers.

CONCLUSION

In populations adversely affected by disparities, patient navigation, telephone calls and prompts, and reminders involving lay health workers increase cancer screening.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Institutes of Health Office of Disease Prevention through an interagency agreement with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42018109263).

Nonadherence to Standard of Care for Locally Advanced Colon Cancer as a Contributory Factor for High Mortality Rates in Kentucky

BACKGROUND

Kentucky has one of the highest mortality rates for colon cancer, despite dramatic improvements in screening. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend operation and adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced (stage IIb/c and stage III) colon cancer (LACC). The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of nonadherence with current standard of care (SOC) and associated factors as possible contributors to mortality.

METHODS

The Kentucky Cancer Registry database linked with administrative health claims was queried for individuals (20 years and older) diagnosed with LACC from 2007 to 2012. Bivariate and logistic regression of nonadherence was performed. Survival analysis was performed with Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier plots.

RESULTS

A total of 1,404 patients with LACC were included. Approximately 42% of patients with LACC were noted to be nonadherent to SOC, with nearly all (95.7%) failing to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. After adjusting for all significant factors, we found the factors associated with nonadherence included the following: age older than 75 years, stage III colon cancer, high Charlson Comorbidity Index (3+), low poverty level, Medicaid coverage, and disability. Adherence to SOC is associated with a significant improvement in the 5-year survival rate compared with nonadherence (63.0% and 27.4%, respectively; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified multiple factors associated with the failure of patients with LACC to receive SOC, particularly adjuvant chemotherapy, suggesting the need to focus on improving adjuvant chemotherapy compliance in specific populations. Nonadherence to LACC SOC is likely a major contributor to the persistently high mortality rates in Kentucky.

Unlocking the potential of population-based cancer registries

Population-based cancer registries have improved dramatically over the last 2 decades. These central cancer registries provide a critical framework that can elevate the science of cancer research. There have also been important technical and scientific advances that help to unlock the potential of population-based cancer registries. These advances include improvements in probabilistic record linkage, refinements in natural language processing, the ability to perform genomic sequencing on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, and improvements in the ability to identify activity levels of many different signaling molecules in FFPE tissue. This article describes how central cancer registries can provide a population-based sample frame that will lead to studies with strong external validity, how central cancer registries can link with public and private health insurance claims to obtain complete treatment information, how central cancer registries can use informatics techniques to provide population-based rapid case ascertainment, how central cancer registries can serve as a population-based virtual tissue repository, and how population-based cancer registries are essential for guiding the implementation of evidence-based interventions and measuring changes in the cancer burden after the implementation of these interventions.

Unlocking the potential of population-based cancer registries

Population-based cancer registries have improved dramatically over the last 2 decades. These central cancer registries provide a critical framework that can elevate the science of cancer research. There have also been important technical and scientific advances that help to unlock the potential of population-based cancer registries. These advances include improvements in probabilistic record linkage, refinements in natural language processing, the ability to perform genomic sequencing on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, and improvements in the ability to identify activity levels of many different signaling molecules in FFPE tissue. This article describes how central cancer registries can provide a population-based sample frame that will lead to studies with strong external validity, how central cancer registries can link with public and private health insurance claims to obtain complete treatment information, how central cancer registries can use informatics techniques to provide population-based rapid case ascertainment, how central cancer registries can serve as a population-based virtual tissue repository, and how population-based cancer registries are essential for guiding the implementation of evidence-based interventions and measuring changes in the cancer burden after the implementation of these interventions.

Invitation to Screening Colonoscopy in the Population at Familial Risk for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Screening colonoscopy can lower the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet participation rates are low even in groups at high risk. The goal of this study was to double the rate of participation in screening colonoscopy among persons at familial risk and then to determine the frequency of neoplasia in this risk group.

METHODS

In a nationwide, cluster-randomized, multicenter study, first-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with CRC across Germany received written informational materials concerning the familial risk of CRC, along with an invitation to undergo colonoscopy. Participants in the intervention group were additionally counseled by nurses over the telephone. The primary endpoint of the study was colonoscopy uptake within 30 days.

RESULTS

The participants' mean age was 50.8 years. The colonoscopy uptake rates were 99/125 (79%) in the intervention group and 97/136 (71%) in the control group (RR = 1.11; 95% confidence interval [0.97; 1.28]). A polypectomy was performed in 72 of 196 asymptomatic persons (37%). In 13 cases (7%), an advanced neoplasia was detected; two of these persons had colon cancer (stages T0 and T1). 42% of the participants expressed barriers against colonoscopy. 22 reported mild side effects; there were no serious side effects.

CONCLUSION

Additional counseling by nurses over the telephone does not increase the participation rate. Approaching patients who have CRC is an opportunity to increase the participation of their first-degree relatives in screening colonoscopy. The frequency of neoplasia that was found in this study underscores the need to screen relatives even before they reach the usual age threshold for screening.

Colorectal Cancer: A Collaborative Approach to Improve Education and Screening in a Rural Population

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and second leading cause of cancer death for men and women in the United States. Although early detection and diagnosis greatly affect survival rates, only about half of the U.S. population participates in screening.
.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this project was to implement community-based CRC education and screening. Outcomes included CRC knowledge, CRC screening kit return rate, and rate of positive screening results. 
.

METHODS

Partnering with a community hospital, CRC educational sessions and free screening opportunities were provided for 193 local city government employees. CRC knowledge was assessed before and after education with the Knowledge Assessment Survey. A paired t test indicated significant improvement in mean CRC knowledge.
.

FINDINGS

More than half of the participants elected to take home fecal immunochemical test kits. Of the 29 participants who submitted their screening kits for evaluation, eight had positive results and received referral recommendations. All participants were notified of their screening results. The community-based CRC project was effective in improving CRC knowledge and screening participation.

Community-Academic Partnerships: Approaches to Engagement

Current public health problems such as cancer have an expansive set of lifestyle and social circumstances that affect the cause and course of the disease. In response, over the past 7 years, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has recognized the important role that cancer centers play in their community and has gradually increased the requirements and stringency of these sections in the Cancer Center Support Grant guidelines to include a plan for community outreach and engagement. Developing sustainable community-academic partnerships is an essential factor for the successful dissemination and implementation of promising interventions and programs aimed at decreasing barriers and improving cancer outcomes. Understanding how best to facilitate linkages and collaboration can expedite translation of research knowledge into practice and allow more evidence-based improvements to be implemented into practice as well as influence research agendas. This article will examine several examples of successful community-academic partnerships focused on cancer prevention and control and explore lessons learned.

Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.

OBJECTIVE

To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms included colorectal cancer and screening.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

At least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study's risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs).

RESULTS

The main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Fecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

Identifying Communication Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence among Appalachian Kentuckians

Utilizing data from 40 in-depth interviews, this article identifies both barriers and facilitators to colorectal screening guideline adherence among Appalachian Kentucky adults recruited through a community-based research network. Key findings identify (a) varying levels of knowledge about screening guidelines, (b) reticence to engage in screening processes, and (c) nuanced communication with healthcare providers and family members regarding screening adherence. What participants knew about the screening process was often derived from personal stories or recalled stories from family members about their screening experiences. Reticence to engage in screening processes reflected reports of cumbersome preparation, privacy issues, embarrassment, medical mistrust, fear of receiving a cancer diagnosis, and lack of symptoms. Participants cited many ways to enhance patient-centered communication, and the findings from this study have implications for health communication message design and communication strategies for healthcare practices in Appalachian Kentucky clinics.

The use of external change agents to promote quality improvement and organizational change in healthcare organizations: a systematic review

Background

External change agents can play an essential role in healthcare organizational change efforts. This systematic review examines the role that external change agents have played within the context of multifaceted interventions designed to promote organizational change in healthcare—specifically, in primary care settings.

Methods

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Academic Search Premier Databases in July 2016 for randomized trials published (in English) between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2016 in which external agents were part of multifaceted organizational change strategies. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 477 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 authors. Full text articles of 113 studies were reviewed. Twenty-one of these studies were selected for inclusion.

Results

Academic detailing (AD) is the most prevalently used organizational change strategy employed as part of multi-component implementation strategies. Out of 21 studies, nearly all studies integrate some form of audit and feedback into their interventions. Eleven studies that included practice facilitation into their intervention reported significant effects in one or more primary outcomes.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that practice facilitation with regular, tailored follow up is a powerful component of a successful organizational change strategy. Academic detailing alone or combined with audit and feedback alone is ineffective without intensive follow up. Provision of educational materials and use of audit and feedback are often integral components of multifaceted implementation strategies. However, we didn’t find examples where those relatively limited strategies were effective as standalone interventions. System-level support through technology (such as automated reminders or alerts) is potentially helpful, but must be carefully tailored to clinic needs.

Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers

Introduction

Practice facilitation involves trained individuals working with practice staff to conduct quality improvement activities and support delivery of evidence-based clinical services. We examined the feasibility of using practice facilitation to assist federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in North Carolina.

Methods

The intervention consisted of 12 months of facilitation in 3 FQHCs. We conducted chart audits to obtain data on changes in documented recommendation for colorectal cancer screening and completed screening. Key informant interviews provided qualitative data on barriers to and facilitators of implementing office systems.

Results

Overall, the percentage of eligible patients with a documented colorectal cancer screening recommendation increased from 15% to 29% (P < .001). The percentage of patients up to date with colorectal cancer screening rose from 23% to 34% (P = .03). Key informants in all 3 clinics said the implementation support from the practice facilitator was critical for initiating or improving office systems and that modifying the electronic medical record was the biggest challenge and most time-consuming aspect of implementing office systems changes. Other barriers were staff turnover and reluctance on the part of local gastroenterology practices to perform free or low-cost diagnostic colonoscopies for uninsured or underinsured patients.

Conclusion

Practice facilitation is a feasible, acceptable, and promising approach for supporting universal colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs. A larger-scale study is warranted.

A Randomized Trial to Compare Alternative Educational Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Hard-to-Reach Urban Minority Population with Health Insurance

This randomized controlled trial assessed different educational approaches for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in a sample of primarily non-US born urban minority individuals, over aged 50, with health insurance, and out of compliance with screening guidelines. In one group, participants were mailed printed educational material (n = 180); in a second, participants' primary care physicians received academic detailing to improve screening referral and follow-up practices (n = 185); in a third, physicians received academic detailing and participants received tailored telephone education (n = 199). Overall, 21.5% of participants (n = 121) received appropriate screening within one year of randomization. There were no statistically significant pairwise differences between groups in screening rate. Among those 60 years of age or older, however, the detailing plus telephone education group had a higher screening rate than the print group (27.3 vs. 7.7%, p = .02). Different kinds of interventions will be required to increase colorectal cancer screening among the increasingly small population segment that remains unscreened. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02392143.

Contrasts in Practices and Perceived Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening by Nurses and Physicians Working in Primary Care Settings in Oman

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common type of cancer worldwide and it is responsible for 610,000 deaths annually, despite availability of screening tests that ensure early detection. Predictions specific to the Middle East show that this region will experience a significant increase in cancer mortality over the next 15 years. This study explored the practices and perceived barriers to CRC screening from the perspective of health care providers (HCPs) working in primary care settings in Muscat, Oman. A cross-sectional design and self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from 142 HCPs. The HCPs were nurses (57.7 %) and physicians (42.3 %) with average age and clinical experience of 32.5 and 9.5 years, respectively. The majority of the HCPs (64.8 %) rarely ordered, referred, health educated, or recommended CRC screening to eligible patients. The only major patient-related barrier to CRC screening reported by HCPs was lack of awareness about CRC tests (63.7 %). There were significant differences between nurses' and physicians' rating of patient-related barriers such as fear of cancer diagnosis (p = 0.037), belief that screening is not effective (p = 0.036), embarrassment or anxiety about screening tests (p = 0.022), and culture (p = 0.001). The major system barriers to CRC screening were lack of hospital policy or protocols, lack of trained HCPs, lack of CRC screening services, and timely appointments to get CRC screening. The findings indicate a need for interventions to enhance patient awareness, HCPs CRC screening practices, and strategies to ameliorate patient and system barriers to CRC screening.

Cancer Incidence in Appalachia, 2004-2011

BACKGROUND

Limited literature is available about cancer in the Appalachian Region. This is the only known analysis of all cancers for Appalachia and non-Appalachia covering 100% of the US population. Appalachian cancer incidence and trends were evaluated by state, sex, and race and compared with those found in non-Appalachian regions.

METHODS

US counties were identified as Appalachian or non-Appalachian. Age-adjusted cancer incidence rates, standard errors, and confidence intervals were calculated using the most recent data from the United States Cancer Statistics for 2004 to 2011.

RESULTS

Generally, Appalachia carries a higher cancer burden compared with non-Appalachia, particularly for tobacco-related cancers. For all cancer sites combined, Appalachia has higher rates regardless of sex, race, or region. The Appalachia and non-Appalachia cancer incidence gap has narrowed, with the exception of oral cavity and pharynx, larynx, lung and bronchus, and thyroid cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher cancer incidence continues in Appalachia and appears at least in part to reflect high tobacco use and potential differences in socioeconomic status, other risk factors, patient health care utilization, or provider practices. It is important to continue to evaluate this population to monitor results from screening and early detection programs, understand behavioral risk factors related to cancer incidence, increase efforts to reduce tobacco use and increase cancer screening, and identify other areas where effective interventions may mediate disparities.

IMPACT

Surveillance and evaluation of special populations provide means to monitor screening and early detection programs, understand behavioral risk factors, and increase efforts to reduce tobacco use to mediate disparities.

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study.

INTERVENTION

Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment.

MAIN MEASURES

Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test.

KEY RESULTS

The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.