Determinants of compliance with colonoscopy in patients with adenomatous colon polyps in a veteran population

Social determinants of health influencing the adherence to post-endoscopic mucosal resection surveillance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health challenge, particularly in Alabama, where the incidence rates exceed national averages. This study investigated the factors influencing adherence to post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) colonoscopies, focusing on travel distance and socioeconomic status. This study aimed to provide evidence-based insights to improve patient care in CRC management.

METHODS

This retrospective study in a tertiary care referral center analyzed 465 patients who underwent EMR. The data included demographics, clinical details, and travel-related variables. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and spatial analysis were used to assess the factors affecting adherence.

RESULTS

Of 465 patients, 36.6 % had adequate follow-up, 21.8 % had inadequate follow-up, and 41.6 % were lost to follow-up. Noteworthy demographic variations were observed, with median ages differing across adherence groups. Traveled distances showcased compelling insights, indicating a median distance of 22.2 miles for adequate follow-up, 15.7 miles for inadequate follow-up, and 31.6 miles for the lost-to-follow-up group (p<0.001). Longer travel distances were associated with better adherence. Longer travel distances from the hospital were associated with significantly lower odds of inadequate follow-up: 10-25 miles OR:0.29, 25-85 miles OR:0.35, and >80 miles OR:0.24 compared to the first quartile (<10 miles). Socioeconomic factors, particularly educational attainment, significantly influenced the follow-up rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed suboptimal post-EMR follow-up rates and underscored the impact of travel distance and socioeconomic factors. Targeted interventions addressing distance-related barriers can enhance treatment adherence and ensure timely CRC surveillance after EMR. Further research is needed in diverse healthcare settings.

Hurdle Poisson Regression Model for Identifying Factors Related to Noncompliance and Waiting Time for Confirmatory Diagnosis in Colorectal Cancer Screening

OBJECTIVES

Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs that use a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are often faced with a noncompliance issue and its subsequent waiting time (WT) for those FIT positives complying with confirmatory diagnosis. We aimed to identify factors associated with both of the correlated problems in the same model.

METHODS

A total of 294,469 subjects, either with positive FIT test results or having a family history, collected from 2004 to 2013 were enrolled for analysis. We applied a hurdle Poisson regression model to accommodate the hurdle of compliance and also its related WT for undergoing colonoscopy while assessing factors responsible for the mixture of the two outcomes.

RESULTS

The effect on compliance and WT varied with contextual factors, such as geographic areas, type of screening units, and level of urbanization. The hurdle score, representing the risk score in association with noncompliance, and the WT score, reflecting the rate of taking colonoscopy, were used to classify subjects into each of three groups representing the degree of compliance and the level of health awareness.

CONCLUSION

Our model was not only successfully applied to evaluating factors associated with the compliance and the WT distribution, but also developed into a useful assessment model for stratifying the risk and predicting whether and when screenees comply with the procedure of receiving confirmatory diagnosis given contextual factors and individual characteristics.

Adherence to Radiology Recommendations in a Clinical CT Lung Screening Program

BACKGROUND

Assess patient adherence to radiologist recommendations in a clinical CT lung cancer screening program.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CT lung cancer screening between January 12, 2012, and June 12, 2013, were included in this institutional review board-approved retrospective review. Patients referred from outside our institution were excluded. All patients met National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines Lung Cancer Screening high-risk criteria. Full-time program navigators used a CT lung screening program management system to schedule patient appointments, generate patient result notification letters detailing the radiologist follow-up recommendation, and track patient and referring physician notification of missed appointments at 30, 60, and 90 days. To be considered adherent, patients could be no more than 90 days past due for their next recommended examination as of September 12, 2014. Patients who died, were diagnosed with cancer, or otherwise became ineligible for screening were considered adherent. Adherence rates were assessed across multiple variables.

RESULTS

During the study interval, 1,162 high-risk patients were screened, and 261 of 1,162 (22.5%) outside referrals were excluded. Of the remaining 901 patients, 503 (55.8%) were male, 414 (45.9%) were active smokers, 377 (41.8%) were aged 65 to 73, and >95% were white. Of the 901 patients, 772 (85.7%) were adherent. Most common reasons for nonadherence were patient refusal of follow-up exam (66.7%), inability to successfully contact the patient (20.9%), and inability to obtain the follow-up order from the referring provider (7.8%); 23 of 901 (2.6%) were discharged for other reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

High rates of adherence to radiologist recommendations are achievable for in-network patients enrolled in a clinical CT lung screening program.

Patient compliance with surveillance colonoscopy: patient factors and the use of a graded recall system

BACKGROUND

Surveillance colonoscopy allows for the early detection and improved treatment outcomes in colorectal neoplasms but compliance rates and factors require further investigation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study examining 816 patients recalled for surveillance colonoscopy at an Australian colorectal practice over a 6-month period. Primary outcome was compliance with colonoscopy within 12 months of recall. The secondary outcome of this study was to identify factors affecting compliance including patient factors and the practices' graded recall system.

RESULTS

A total of 715 patients (87.6%) were compliant with recall requests for repeat colonoscopy. Significantly higher compliance rates were noted with a personal history of adenomatous polyps (90.9% versus 85.6%, P = 0.025). Those with private insurance or Department of Veterans Affairs were more likely to be compliant than those publicly funded (89.0% versus 93.3% versus 79.0%, P = 0.007). No statistically significant difference in compliance was shown with a personal history of colorectal cancer, diverticular disease, perianal disease, National Health and Medical Research Council risk category, gender, time associated with the practice or the clinician. There was a significant positive correlation between the number of letters sent and compliance with recall, with 61.8% being compliant after a single letter, and a final cumulative compliance after five letters of 87.6% (R = 0.882, P = 0.048).

CONCLUSION

A graded recall system can achieve compliance rates as high as 87.6% compared to a single letter only achieving 61.8% compliance. A history of adenomatous polyps and insurance status were the only factors shown to result in higher recall compliance.

The clinical effectiveness of different surveillance strategies to prevent colorectal cancer in people with intermediate-grade colorectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort analysis, and psychological and economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

The UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies.

DESIGN

Retrospective multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

Routine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries.

SUBJECTS

Patients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Advanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up.

METHODS

The effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost-utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance.

RESULTS

In the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain.

CONCLUSIONS

A single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Whites and blacks have similar risk of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines for surveillance of colonic neoplasia are based on data from predominantly white populations, yet whether these recommendations are applicable to blacks is unknown.

AIM

To define the prevalence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) among whites and blacks undergoing surveillance colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of asymptomatic, average-risk non-Hispanic white (N = 246) and non-Hispanic black (N = 203) patients with colorectal neoplasia who underwent baseline screening colonoscopy between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2007, and a surveillance colonoscopy before December 31, 2010, at an academic safety-net hospital. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of ACN, defined as a tubular adenoma or sessile serrated adenoma (SSA) ≥ 10 mm, any adenoma with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, any serrated lesion with dysplasia, or invasive cancer at surveillance.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 4.3 years, the overall prevalence of ACN at surveillance was similar among blacks and whites (11.3 vs. 9.8 %; P = 0.59) with an odds ratio of 1.18 (95 % CI 0.65-2.16) [corrected]. Blacks and whites with non-advanced neoplasia had similar rates of ACN at the 1-3, 4-5, and >5 year follow-up intervals. Blacks with ACN or multiplicity at baseline had higher rates of ACN at the 1- to 3-year interval compared with whites, but the difference was non-significant (26.7 vs. 12.5 %; P = 0.32). No interval cancers were observed for either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall prevalence of ACN was similar between non-Hispanic blacks and non-Hispanic whites undergoing surveillance in a safety-net healthcare setting suggesting that current surveillance guidelines are appropriate for both blacks and whites.

Rural-urban differences in the long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the impact of municipality of residence on colonoscopic surveillance and colorectal cancer risk after adenoma resection in a French well-defined administrative area.

METHODS

This registry-based study included all patients residing in Côte d'Or (n=5769) first diagnosed with colorectal adenomas between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 1999. Information about colonoscopic surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence was collected until December 31, 2003.

RESULTS

A rural place of residence reduced the probability of colonoscopic surveillance in men [HR=0.89 (95%CI: 0.79-0.99), p=0.041] and in patients without family history of colorectal cancer [HR=0.91(0.82-0.99), p=0.044]. After a median follow-up of 7.7 years, 87 patients developed invasive colorectal cancer. After advanced adenoma removal, the standardized incidence ratio for colorectal cancer was 3.03 (95%CI: 1.92-4.54) for rural patients and 1.87 (95%CI: 1.26-2.66) for urban patients compared with the general population. The risk of colorectal cancer was higher in rural patients than in urban ones only after removal of the initial advanced adenoma [HR=1.73 (95%CI: 1.01-3.00, p=0.048)]. Further adjustment for surveillance colonoscopy, physician location, and other confounders had little impact on these results.

CONCLUSION

The increased risk of subsequent colorectal cancer after advanced adenoma removal in French rural patients was not explained by a lower rate of colonoscopic surveillance. The role of socio-economic and environmental factors requires further exploration.

Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

It has been suggested that bowel preparation quality may influence decision-making about appropriate follow-up interval after screening colonoscopy. We sought: (1) to assess physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy in average-risk patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening, and (2) to measure the association between physician recommendations and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy from 2004 to 2009 found to have inadequate bowel preparation were identified. Physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy were assessed through examination of endoscopy records. Data from repeat colonoscopies were collected through August 2010.

RESULTS

There were 373 patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening colonoscopy. There was a wide range of physician recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy: next day (4.6 % of patients), 2 days to 6 months (9.9 %), 7 months to 1 year (34.0 %), 2-5 years (38.3 %), 6-10 years (5.1 %), and timing not specified (8.0 %). Physicians were significantly more likely to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 1 year if any polyps were detected (OR = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients instructed to have next day follow-up were significantly more likely to adhere to the recommendation compared to patients who were instructed to return after longer intervals (OR 4.4, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy were subject to a wide range of physician recommendations for follow-up. Patient adherence to physician recommendations was significantly higher when repeat colonoscopy was recommended the next day.

Awareness of surveillance recommendations among patients with colorectal adenomas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on the rate of attendance at surveillance colonoscopy examinations. Increasing patients' awareness about the importance of surveillance might improve attendance, but it is not clear how much they know about their follow-up recommendations. We assessed the awareness of patients with adenomas about their surveillance recommendations.

METHODS

Ten endoscopy departments provided access to their colonoscopy database for quality assurance; 2 datasets were obtained. We analyzed data from 4000 colonoscopies (400 per department) performed on patients with adenomas. All the patients were mailed a survey to determine how much information they had about their colonoscopy results and their follow-up recommendations. Data from 549 patients were included in the analysis. We also assessed surveillance attendance among 500 patients (50 per department) who had adenomas removed.

RESULTS

Of the patients analyzed, 85% recalled retrieval of polyps during their colonoscopy, and 85% recalled whether they needed surveillance or not. The indication for surveillance was recalled by 69% of patients (range between departments, 55%-83%; P < .01). Factors that were associated with awareness of recommendations were younger age (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), treatment by a gastroenterologist (OR, 5.53; 95% CI, 3.28-9.32), and presence of 3 or more adenomas (OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.29-6.85). Attendance among patients with adenomas varied among departments, from 60% to 89% (P < .01), and was not associated with awareness of patients about their recommendations per department (P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

Not enough patients (only 85%) who receive colonoscopies are aware of their results or surveillance recommendations. Although awareness of findings and recommendations did not correlate with follow-up attendance, patients should be better informed about findings and their need for surveillance.

An alerting system improves adherence to follow-up recommendations from colonoscopy examinations

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Systems are available to ensure that results of tests are communicated to patients. However, lack of adherence to recommended follow-up evaluation increases risk for adverse health outcomes and medical or legal issues. We tested the effectiveness of a novel follow-up system for patients due for surveillance colonoscopy examinations.

METHODS

Electronic medical records from colonoscopies performed 5 years prior were reviewed to identify individuals due for a repeat surveillance colonoscopy examination. Patients were assigned to groups that received the standard of care or a newly developed follow-up system that included a letter to the primary care provider, 2 letters to the patient, and a telephone call to patients who had not yet scheduled an examination by the procedure due date. The primary end point was the percentage of patients who scheduled or completed the colonoscopy examination within 6 months of the due date. Secondary end points included detection rate for adenomas, sex- and ethnicity-specific follow-up rates, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of 2609 patient records reviewed, 830 (31.8%) were found to be due for a surveillance colonoscopy examination in the study period. At the conclusion of the study, 241 (44.7%) patients in the intervention arm had procedures scheduled or completed, compared with 66 (22.6%) in the control group (P < .0001). The follow-up system appeared particularly effective among non-white patients; patients reported general satisfaction with the reminder program.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple protocol of letters and a telephone call to patients who are due for colonoscopy examinations significantly improved adherence to endoscopic follow-up recommendations. This work provides justification for the creation of reminder systems to improve patient adherence to medical recommendations.