Improving access to colorectal cancer screening through medical philanthropy: feasibility of a flexible sigmoidoscopy health fair for uninsured patients

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Process evaluation of health fairs promoting cancer screenings

Background

Low income and uninsured individuals often have lower adherence to cancer screening for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. Health fairs are a common community outreach strategy used to provide cancer-related health education and services.

Methods

This study was a process evaluation of seven health fairs focused on cancer screening across the U.S. We conducted key-informant interviews with the fair coordinator and conducted baseline and follow-up surveys with fair participants to describe characteristics of participants as well as their experiences. We collected baseline data with participants at the health fairs and telephone follow-up surveys 6 months following the fair.

Results

Attendance across the seven health fairs ranged from 41 to 212 participants. Most fairs provided group or individual education, print materials and cancer screening during the event. Overall, participants rated health fairs as very good and participants reported that the staff was knowledgeable and that they liked the materials distributed. After the fairs, about 60% of participants, who were reached at follow-up, had read the materials provided and had conversations with others about cancer screening, and 41% talked to their doctors about screening. Based on findings from evaluation including participant data and coordinator interviews, we describe 6 areas in planning for health fairs that may increase their effectiveness. These include: 1) use of a theoretical framework for health promotion to guide educational content and activities provided, 2) considering the community characteristics, 3) choosing a relevant setting, 4) promotion of the event, 5) considerations of the types of services to deliver, and 6) evaluation of the health fair.

Conclusions

The events reported varied in reach and the participants represented diverse races and lower income populations overall. Most health fairs offered education, print materials and onsite cancer screening. Participants reported general satisfaction with these events and were motivated through their participation to read educational materials or discuss screening with providers. Public health professionals can benefit from this process evaluation and recommendations for designing and evaluating health fairs.

Impact of non-clinical community-based promotional campaigns on bowel cancer screening engagement: An integrative literature review

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviewed the relationship between non-clinical, client-oriented promotional campaigns to raise bowel cancer awareness and screening engagement.

METHOD

An integrative literature review using predefined search terms was conducted to summarise the accumulated knowledge. Data was analysed by coding and categorising, then synthesized through development of themes.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 116 studies met inclusion criteria. Promotional campaigns had varying impact on screening uptake for bowel cancer. Mass media was found to moderately increase screening, predominately amongst "worried well". Small media used in conjunction with other promotional activities, thus its effect on screening behaviours was unclear. One-on-one education was less effective and less feasible than group education in increasing intention to screen. Financial support was ineffective in increasing screening rates when compared to other promotional activities. Screening engagement increased because of special events and celebrity endorsement.

CONCLUSION

Non-clinical promotional campaigns did impact uptake of bowel cancer screening engagement. However, little is evident on the effect of single types of promotion and most research is based on clinician-directed campaigns.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Cancer awareness and screening promotions should be implemented at community and clinical level to maximize effectiveness. Such an approach will ensure promotional activities are targeting consumers, thus strengthening screening engagement.

Screening Colonoscopy among Uninsured and Underinsured Urban Minorities

Background/Aims

Uninsured individuals have lower rates of screening colonoscopy (SC), and little is known regarding the pathology results obtained when they undergo colonoscopies. Since 2004, we have participated in a program that offers SC to uninsured New Yorkers; herein, we report our findings.

Methods

Uninsured, average-risk patients who were at least 50 years of age underwent SC at our institution between April 2004 and June 2011. We analyzed polyp pathology, location, size, incidence of adenomas, and incidence of adenomas with advanced pathology (AAP) with respect to ethnicity, gender, and age.

Results

Out of 493 referrals, 222 patients completed the colonoscopies. Polyps were identified in 21.2% of all patients; 14% had adenomas, and 4.5% had AAP. The rates of adenomas among African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites were 24.3%, 12.1%, and 11.6%, respectively, and the corresponding rates of AAP were 10.8%, 3.5%, and 2.3%. Differences in the polyp type, location, and AAP did not reach statistical significance with respect to ethnicity or gender. Patients aged 60 and older were found to have a higher rate of advanced adenomas compared with younger patients (8.6% vs 2.6%, p=0.047).

Conclusions

Further efforts to fund screening colonoscopies for uninsured individuals will likely result in the identification of advanced lesions of the colon before they progress to colorectal cancer.

Knowledge and practice of colorectal screening in a suburban group of Iraqi American women

Colorectal cancer (CRC) was the second most common cancer among women in 2008, accounting for 571,000 cases, and 9.4% of all cancer cases afflicting women worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Iraqi National Cancer Registry (INCR), Iraq has seen a steady rise in CRC rates among its general population over the past several decades. Despite Iraq's increasing national incidence of CRC and the growth of the US' Iraqi immigrant population over the last 10 years, little remains known about the prevalence of CRC among the latter population, their knowledge of CRC and associated risk factors, or their behavioral intent and practices regarding CRC screening. The aims of this study were to (1) examine the knowledge of and adherence to National Cancer Institute screening recommendations for CRC among a population of Iraqi women living in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area and (2) test the efficacy of a one-time educational intervention conducted using linguistically and culturally appropriate materials to raise awareness of, and promote future adherence to, CRC screening methods. This descriptive study used a pre/post design with a 12-month follow-up. Following extensive dissemination of information regarding the study in the Iraqi American community in the study location, 50 women were initially recruited, of whom 32 participated in the study. The study's findings revealed that the participants generally had low baseline levels of CRC screening adherence and preventive knowledge that significantly improved after the intervention as demonstrated by pre- and post-assessments of knowledge and behavior. These findings could be used to raise awareness (1) among clinicians regarding the need for early detection and screening of and referral for CRC treatment among Iraqi American women and (2) among Iraqi American women about risk factors for this disease and the importance of early detection and screening. The study also highlights the need for a larger study of knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions among both this population and the clinicians who serve them.

Key informant interviews with coordinators of special events conducted to increase cancer screening in the United States

Special events such as health fairs, cultural festivals and charity runs are commonly employed in the community to increase cancer screening; however, little is known about their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to assess the activities, screening outcomes, barriers and recommendations of special events to increase breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. In-depth interviews were conducted nationally with 51 coordinators of events in June to September 2012. Health fairs and screening days were the most common events conducted, primarily for breast cancer education. Goals were to increase awareness of cancer screening and reach special populations. Evidence-based Community Guide strategies to increase cancer screening employed were: small media, reducing structural barriers, one-on-one education or group education. For each event that provided screening on-site or through referral, a mean of 35 breast, 28 cervical and 19 colorectal cancer screenings were reported. Coordinators made recommendations for further evaluation of special events, and most plan to conduct another special event. These data are novel and provide baseline documentation of activities and recommendations for a commonly used community-based cancer screening intervention that lacks evidence of effectiveness. Additional research to better understand the use of special events for increasing cancer screening is warranted.

Knowledge and perceptions of breast health among free clinic patients

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is a significant women's health problem in the United States. However, critical information on specific populations is still lacking. In particular, it is not well known how free clinic patients perceive breast health. The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge and perceptions of breast health among uninsured women utilizing a free clinic that serves as a safety net for the underserved.

METHODS

A self-administrated survey that included knowledge and perceptions of breast health was conducted for female free clinic patients aged 40 or older in fall 2012. There were 146 participants. The participants were classified into three groups for comparison; U.S. citizen English speakers, non-U.S. citizen English speakers, and Spanish speakers.

RESULTS

Spanish speakers had the highest average score on the knowledge of breast health, whereas the non-U.S. citizen English speakers had the lowest average score. Free clinic patients may consider breast health screening if recommended by health care providers. The non-U.S. citizen English speakers and Spanish speakers were more likely to have negative perceptions of breast health compared with the U.S. citizen English speakers.

CONCLUSIONS

Promoting knowledge about breast health is important for free clinics. Recommendation by a health care provider is a key to increasing attendance at health education programs and breast health screening. Non-U.S. citizens and non-English speakers would need culturally competent interventions. Free clinics have limited human and financial resources. Such characteristics of free clinics should be considered for practice implementations.

Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. CRC incidence and mortality can be reduced through screening. However, in the United States, screening participation remains suboptimal, particularly among underserved populations such as the uninsured, recent immigrants, and racial/ethnic minority groups. Increasing screening rates among underserved populations will reduce the US burden of CRC. In this commentary focusing on underserved populations, we highlight the public health impact of CRC screening, list key challenges to screening the underserved, and review promising approaches to boost screening rates. We identify four key policy and research priorities to increase screening among underserved populations: 1) actively promote the message, "the best test is the one that gets done"; 2) develop and implement methods to identify unscreened individuals within underserved population groups for screening interventions; 3) develop and implement approaches for organized screening delivery; and 4) fund and enhance programs and policies that provide access to screening, diagnostic follow-up, and CRC treatment for underserved populations. This commentary represents the consensus of a diverse group of experts in cancer control and prevention, epidemiology, gastroenterology, and primary care from across the country who formed the Coalition to Boost Screening among the Underserved in the United States. The group was organized and held its first annual working group meeting in conjunction with the World Endoscopy Organization's annual Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee meeting during Digestive Disease Week 2012 in San Diego, California.

A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States

Background

Special events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.

Methods

Articles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.

Results

Of the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50–1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.

Conclusions

Special events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

Increasing access to cholesterol screening in rural communities catalyzes cardiovascular disease prevention

PURPOSE

Despite increasing frequency, little evidence guides cholesterol screening in less traditional health care settings, such as rural health fairs.

METHODS

The Miller School of Medicine Department of Community Service (DOCS) is a student-run organization providing free basic health care to underserved South Florida communities. We retrospectively reviewed all new patients seen at 2007 DOCS rural fairs to describe their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) values. In addition, we assessed if patient characteristics were associated with cholesterol abnormalities and whether patients with abnormalities who returned to a subsequent fair in 2008 or 2009 improved their cholesterol.

FINDINGS

Of 252 patients, 145 (58%) had an LDL cholesterol over 129 mg/dL and 61 (24%) had an HDL cholesterol below 40 mg/dL or 50 mg/dL for males and females, respectively. Baseline LDL cholesterol was not associated with body-mass index (BMI), age over 60 years, gender, healthy lifestyle habits, or insurance status. Of 36 patients with elevated LDL cholesterol and a follow-up screening, 24 (67%) reduced their LDL cholesterol by at least 16 mg/dL though reductions were not associated with BMI reduction, and 22 (61%) increased their HDL cholesterol by at least 5 mg/dL, trending with BMI reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Cholesterol screening at rural fairs can identify a high proportion of patients with abnormal cholesterol, including those who might not be considered at high risk. Although this may catalyze favorable cholesterol changes, the lack of an association with weight loss suggests patients seek additional medical care, which should be considered before offering cholesterol screening at fairs.

Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded varying estimates of the benefit of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to more precisely estimate the effect of FS-based screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC by performing a meta-analysis of published RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Medline and Embase databases were searched for eligible articles published between 1966 and 28 May 2012. After screening 3,319 citations and 29 potentially relevant articles, two reviewers identified five RCTs evaluating the effect of FS screening on the incidence and mortality of CRC. The reviewers independently extracted relevant data; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The quality of included studies was assessed using criteria set out by the Evidence-Based Gastroenterology Steering Group. Random effects meta-analysis was performed. The five RCTs meeting eligibility criteria were determined to be of high methodologic quality and enrolled 416,159 total subjects. Four European studies compared FS to no screening and one study from the United States compared FS to usual care. By intention to treat analysis, FS-based screening was associated with an 18% relative risk reduction in the incidence of CRC (0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.91, p<0.001, number needed to screen [NNS] to prevent one case of CRC = 361), a 33% reduction in the incidence of left-sided CRC (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.59-0.76, p<0.001, NNS = 332), and a 28% reduction in the mortality of CRC (relative risk [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80, p<0.001, NNS = 850). The efficacy estimate, the amount of benefit for those who actually adhered to the recommended treatment, suggested that FS screening reduced CRC incidence by 32% (p<0.001), and CRC-related mortality by 50% (p<0.001). Limitations of this meta-analysis include heterogeneity in the design of the included trials, absence of studies from Africa, Asia, or South America, and lack of studies comparing FS with colonoscopy or stool-based testing.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrates that FS-based screening significantly reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in average-risk patients.