1
|
Vachon EA, Katz ML, Rawl SM, Stump TE, Emerson B, Baltic RD, Biederman EB, Monahan PO, Kettler CD, Paskett ED, Champion VL. Comparative effectiveness of two interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening among females living in the rural Midwest. J Rural Health 2024:10.1111/jrh.12828. [PMID: 38391093 PMCID: PMC11341775 DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/07/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the comparative effectiveness of a tailored, interactive digital video disc (DVD) intervention versus DVD plus patient navigation (PN) intervention versus usual care (UC) on the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among females living in Midwest rural areas. METHODS As part of a larger study, 663 females (ages 50-74) living in rural Indiana and Ohio and not up-to-date (UTD) with CRC screening at baseline were randomized to one of three study groups. Demographics , health status/history, and beliefs and attitudes about CRC screening were measured at baseline. CRC screening was assessed at baseline and 12 months from medical records and self-report. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether females in each group were UTD for screening and which test they completed. RESULTS Adjusted for covariates, females in the DVD plus PN group were 3.5× more likely to complete CRC screening than those in the UC group (odds ratio [OR] 3.62; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09, 6.47) and baseline intention to receive CRC screening (OR 3.45, CI: 2.21,5.42) at baseline. Adjusting for covariates, there was no difference by study arm whether females who became UTD for CRC screening chose to complete a colonoscopy or fecal occult blood test/fecal immunochemical test. CONCLUSIONS Many females living in the rural Midwest are not UTD for CRC screening. A tailored intervention that included an educational DVD and PN improved knowledge, addressed screening barriers, provided information about screening test options, and provided support was more effective than UC and DVD-only to increase adherence to recommended CRC screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eric A Vachon
- School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Mira L Katz
- Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Susan M Rawl
- School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Timothy E Stump
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Brent Emerson
- Division of Health Behavior and Health Promotion, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Ryan D Baltic
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Erika B Biederman
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Patrick O Monahan
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Carla D Kettler
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Department of Biostatistics and Health Data Science, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| | - Electra D Paskett
- Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Victoria L Champion
- School of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
- Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Comprehensive Cancer Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Davis MM, Coury J, Larson JH, Gunn R, Towey EG, Ketelhut A, Patzel M, Ramsey K, Coronado GD. Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot. J Rural Health 2023; 39:279-290. [PMID: 35703582 PMCID: PMC9969840 DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. We piloted a collaborative mailed FIT program with health plans and rural clinics to evaluate preliminary effectiveness and refine implementation strategies. METHODS We conducted a single-arm study using a convergent, parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the implementation of a collaborative mailed FIT program. Enrollees were identified using health plan claims and confirmed via clinic scrub. The intervention included a vendor-delivered automated phone call (auto-call) prompt, FIT mailing, and reminder auto-call; clinics were encouraged to make live reminder calls. Practice facilitation was the primary implementation strategy. At 12 months post mailing, we assessed the rates of: (1) mailed FIT return and (2) completion of any CRC screening. We took fieldnotes and conducted postintervention key informant interviews to assess implementation outcomes (eg, feasibility, acceptability, and adaptations). RESULTS One hundred and sixty-nine Medicaid or Medicare enrollees were mailed a FIT. Over the 12-month intervention, 62 participants (37%) completed screening of which 21% completed the mailed FIT (most were returned within 3 months), and 15% screened by other methods (FITs distributed in-clinic, colonoscopy). Enrollee demographics and the reminder call may encourage mailed FIT completion. Program feasibility and acceptability was high and supported by perceived positive benefit, alignment with existing workflows, adequate staffing, and practice facilitation. CONCLUSION Collaborative health plan-clinic mailed FIT programs are feasible and acceptable for implementation in rural clinics and support CRC screening completion. Studies that pragmatically test collaborative approaches to mailed FIT and patient navigation follow-up after abnormal FIT and support broad scale-up in rural settings are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melinda M. Davis
- Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, Oregon, USA,Department of Family Medicine and School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Jen Coury
- Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Mary Patzel
- Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Katrina Ramsey
- Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design (BERD) Program, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Deeds SA, Moore CB, Gunnink EJ, Wheat CL, Robinson AE, Bomsztyk MD, Geyer JR, Chen A, Godbout RM, Nelson KM, Dominitz JA, Reddy A. Implementation of a mailed faecal immunochemical test programme for colorectal cancer screening among Veterans. BMJ Open Qual 2022; 11:bmjoq-2022-001927. [DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 10/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BackgroundScreening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is effective at reducing CRC mortality. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with deferred care, especially screening for CRC.AimWe sought to develop a mailed FIT programme (MFP) to increase CRC screening and make recommendations for adoption across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and for other large healthcare systems.Setting2 regional VA medical centres in California and Washington state.Participants5667 average risk veterans aged 50–75 overdue or due within 90 days for CRC screening.Programme descriptionA multidisciplinary implementation team collaborated to mail an FIT kit to eligible veterans. Both sites mailed a primer postcard, and one site added an automated reminder call.Programme evaluationWe monitored FIT return and positivity rate, as well as impact of the programme on clinical staff. 34% of FIT kits were returned within 90 days and 7.8% were abnormal.DiscussionWe successfully implemented a population-based MFP at multiple regional VA sites and recommend that these efforts be spread across VA. Our model of regional leadership, facility champions and using centralised resources can be adaptable to other large healthcare systems. MFPs support catch-up from disrupted care by addressing access to CRC screening, unburden primary care visits and conserve limited procedural resources.
Collapse
|
4
|
Hanna K, Arredondo BL, Chavez MN, Geiss C, Hume E, Szalacha L, Christy SM, Vadaparampil S, Menon U, Islam J, Hong YR, Alishahi Tabriz A, Kue J, Turner K. Cancer Screening Among Rural and Urban Clinics During COVID-19: A Multistate Qualitative Study. JCO Oncol Pract 2022; 18:e1045-e1055. [PMID: 35254884 PMCID: PMC9797235 DOI: 10.1200/op.21.00658] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The effects of COVID-19 have been understudied in rural areas. This study sought to (1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the pandemic in rural and urban primary care practices, (2) describe implementation strategies to support cancer screening, and (3) provide recommendations. METHODS A qualitative study was conducted (N = 42) with primary care staff across 20 sites. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 to April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (hybrid approach) in NVivo 12 Plus. Practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned clinics, and academic medical centers across 10 states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Staff included individuals serving in the dual role of health care provider and administrator (21.4%), health care administrator (23.8%), physician (19.0%), advanced practice provider (11.9%), or resident (23.8%). The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, and future recommendations. RESULTS Participants reported multilevel barriers to cancer screening including policy-level (eg, elective procedure delays), organizational (eg, backlogs), and individual (eg, patient cancellation). Several facilitators to screening were noted, such as home-based testing, using telehealth, and strong partnerships with referral sites. Practices used strategies to encourage screening, such as incentivizing patients and providers and expanding outreach. Rural clinics reported challenges with backlogs, staffing, telehealth implementation, and patient outreach. CONCLUSION Primary care staff used innovative strategies during the pandemic to promote cancer screening. Unresolved challenges (eg, backlogs and inability to implement telehealth) disproportionately affected rural clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karim Hanna
- Department of Family Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Brandy L. Arredondo
- Participant Research, Interventions, and Measurement Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Melody N. Chavez
- Participant Research, Interventions, and Measurement Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Carley Geiss
- Participant Research, Interventions, and Measurement Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Emma Hume
- Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Laura Szalacha
- Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Shannon M. Christy
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Susan Vadaparampil
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Usha Menon
- College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Jessica Islam
- Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,Center for Immunization and Infection Research in Cancer, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Cancer Epidemiology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
| | - Young-Rock Hong
- Department of Health Services Research and Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
| | - Amir Alishahi Tabriz
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Jennifer Kue
- College of Nursing, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL
| | - Kea Turner
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL,Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL,Kea Turner, PhD, MPH, MA, Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center; Department of Oncological Sciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, 12902 USF Magnolia Drive, MFC-EDU, Tampa, FL 33612; Twitter: @TurnerKea; e-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Coury JK, Schneider JL, Green BB, Baldwin LM, Petrik AF, Rivelli JS, Schwartz MR, Coronado GD. Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Transl Behav Med 2021; 10:68-77. [PMID: 30445511 DOI: 10.1093/tbm/iby094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain low, especially among certain populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) outreach initiated by U.S. health plans could reach underserved individuals, while solving CRC screening data and implementation challenges faced by health clinics. We report the models and motivations of two health insurance plans implementing a mailed FIT program for age-eligible U.S. Medicaid and Medicare populations. One health plan operates in a single state with ~220,000 enrollees; the other operates in multiple states with ~2 million enrollees. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and observed leadership and clinic staff planning during program development and implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach; coded interview reports and meeting minutes were iteratively reviewed and summarized for themes. Between June and September 2016, nine participants were identified, and all agreed to the interview. Interviews revealed that organizational context was important to both organizations and helped shape program design. Both organizations were hoping this program would address barriers to their prior CRC screening improvement efforts and saw CRC screening as a priority. Despite similar motivations to participate in a mailed FIT intervention, contextual features of the health plans led them to develop distinct implementation models: a collaborative model using some health clinic staffing versus a centralized model operationalizing outreach primarily at the health plan. Data are not yet available on the models' effectiveness. Our findings might help inform the design of programs to deliver mailed FIT outreach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jennifer L Schneider
- Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Science Department, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Beverly B Green
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Science Department, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Laura-Mae Baldwin
- University of Washington, Department of Family Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Amanda F Petrik
- Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Science Department, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Jennifer S Rivelli
- Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Science Department, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Malaika R Schwartz
- University of Washington, Department of Family Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Gloria D Coronado
- Kaiser Permanente, Center for Health Research, Science Department, Portland, OR, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hong S, Shin HY, Lee B, Hwang NR, Hwang SH, Jun JK. Increase in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate by a Round-Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing Kit and Associated Factors in Underserved Regions of Korea: A Community-Based Intervention Study. Gut Liver 2021; 14:323-330. [PMID: 31530737 PMCID: PMC7234883 DOI: 10.5009/gnl19124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2019] [Revised: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 06/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Background/Aims Postal distribution of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit has been recommended as an effective method of increasing participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The present study was performed to assess the impact of the round-mailed FIT kit on screening participation in underserved regions of Korea and to identify factors related to nonparticipation. Methods Residents were recruited from three rural regions of Korea that lack screening units for the National Cancer Screening Program. A package containing a FIT kit for stool self-sampling and a return envelope addressed to the local health center was postally distributed to each subject. Thirty days after the kits were mailed, nonresponders were reminded via telephone as the second intervention. The participation rates and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each intervention response were calculated to evaluate the effect of the interventions and factors related to screening participation in response to the interventions. Results CRC screening participation rates increased from 24.5% (95% CI, 21.6% to 27.4%) to 42.6% (95% CI, 39.3% to 46.0%) as a result of postal screening and increased further to 51.4% (95% CI, 48.0% to 54.9%) after the telephone reminder. After controlling for the sex, age, and household type of each subject, factors associated with poor response to postal screening were identified as low educational attainment and poor previous participation in the National Cancer Screening Program. Conclusions Round-mailed FIT kits with phone call reminders were an effective intervention, nearly doubling the screening rate in underserved regions of Korea.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Seri Hong
- National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Hye Young Shin
- National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Bomyee Lee
- National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| | - Na Rae Hwang
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sang-Hyun Hwang
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Kwan Jun
- National Cancer Control Institute, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea.,Graduate School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Nwankwo EC, Lines J, Trehan S, Marsh M, Trehan A, Banwait K, Pathapati S, Misra S, Obokhare I. Improving Adenoma Detection Rates: The Role of the Fecal Immunochemical Test. Cureus 2021; 13:e14382. [PMID: 33976998 PMCID: PMC8106918 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.14382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There is limited knowledge about adenoma detection rates (ADRs) in patients with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). We hypothesized that colonoscopy performed after FIT would result in higher ADRs. Methods We reviewed ADRs for colonoscopies performed after a positive FIT test and compared them to ADR rates for routine colonoscopy performed without an initial FIT test between November 2014 and March 2017 at multiple endoscopy sites. Results A total of 979 patients underwent a FIT testing in the Texas panhandle, of whom 12.1% (n=119) tested positive. Also, 32.8% (n=39) were found to have one or more tubular adenomatous polyps on final pathological examination. Among these patients, the majority were female (64.1%; n=25). Of the patients, 15.9% (n=19) had a hyperplastic polyp, 1.7% (n=2) had findings consistent with ulcerative colitis, and 0.8% (n=1) were positive for an adenocarcinoma. In the control group of 2,603 patients in whom routine colonoscopy was performed as the initial tool for screening, 719 were found to have one or more tubular adenomas, with an ADR rate of 27.5%. In this group, the cancer rate was found to be 1%. Conclusions There was a significant increase in the ADR when colonoscopy is conducted after a positive FIT test. Recommending colonoscopies after a positive FIT test will not only improve ADRs significantly but also lower the overall healthcare cost for screening colon cancer in this era of escalating healthcare costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jefferson Lines
- General Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA
| | - Sahiba Trehan
- General Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA
| | - Michelle Marsh
- General Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA
| | - Amit Trehan
- Gastroenterology, Amarillo Endoscopy Center, Amarillo, USA
| | - Kuldip Banwait
- Gastroenterology, Panhandle Gastroenterology, Amarillo, USA
| | | | - Subhasis Misra
- Surgery, Oncology, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA
| | - Izi Obokhare
- General Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Amarillo, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sutton AL, Preston MA, Thomson M, Litzenberg C, Taylor TF, Cole EP, Sheppard VB. Reaching Rural Residents to Identify Colorectal Cancer Education and Intervention Targets. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2021; 36:338-344. [PMID: 31654321 PMCID: PMC7182473 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-019-01635-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
Disparities in cancer screening and care in rural communities warrant the need to determine effective ways to reach, engage, and educate the community residents. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to pilot methods to engage rural residents in colorectal cancer (CRC) research and education activities and assess knowledge of CRC guidelines, symptoms, and screening behaviors in this sample. The community-engaged research approach was employed to develop and distribute a CRC knowledge and screening behavior assessment using various methods such as email and community drop boxes placed throughout the community. Bivariate analysis assessed the relationship between age and CRC knowledge items. Three hundred ninety-one surveys were returned with most received from community drop boxes (60%) followed by educational events (23%). The most ineffective method to distribute surveys was through community events. Most individuals were knowledgeable of CRC symptoms (70%) and screening facts (67%). Bivariate analysis showed that individuals 50 years or older had significantly more knowledge of CRC risks and screening than those under the age of 50. This study highlights the potential of community drop boxes as an effective method for engaging rural communities. Further, findings from the survey highlight the need to focus CRC education on younger individuals in which CRC incidence has increased.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Arnethea L Sutton
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, MCV Campus, One Capitol Square, 9th floor, 830 E Main St, PO Box 980149, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA.
| | - Michael A Preston
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, MCV Campus, One Capitol Square, 9th floor, 830 E Main St, PO Box 980149, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Maria Thomson
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, MCV Campus, One Capitol Square, 9th floor, 830 E Main St, PO Box 980149, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Charlotte Litzenberg
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Trina F Taylor
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Eva Polly Cole
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| | - Vanessa B Sheppard
- Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, MCV Campus, One Capitol Square, 9th floor, 830 E Main St, PO Box 980149, Richmond, VA, 23298, USA
- Massey Cancer Center, Office of Health Equity and Disparities Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Wheeler SB, O’Leary MC, Rhode J, Yang JY, Drechsel R, Plescia M, Reuland DS, Brenner AT. Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population. Cancer 2020; 126:4197-4208. [PMID: 32686116 PMCID: PMC10588542 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2020] [Revised: 02/06/2020] [Accepted: 02/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. METHODS The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephanie B. Wheeler
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Meghan C. O’Leary
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jewels Rhode
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jeff Y. Yang
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
| | | | - Marcus Plescia
- Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Charlotte, NC
| | - Daniel S. Reuland
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Alison T. Brenner
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Goldshore MA, Mehta SJ, Fletcher W, Tzanis G, Doubeni CA, Paulson EC. An RCT of Fecal Immunochemical Test Colorectal Cancer Screening in Veterans Without Recent Primary Care. Am J Prev Med 2020; 59:41-48. [PMID: 32564804 PMCID: PMC7388415 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.02.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2019] [Revised: 02/12/2020] [Accepted: 02/13/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The use of screening can prevent death from colorectal cancer, yet people without regular healthcare visits may not realize the benefits of this preventive intervention. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a mailed screening invitation or mailed fecal immunochemical test in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake in veterans without recent primary care encounters. STUDY DESIGN Three-arm pragmatic randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS Participants were screening-eligible veterans aged 50-75 years, without a recent primary care visit who accessed medical services at the Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veteran Affairs Medical Center between January 1, 2017, and July 31, 2017. All data were analyzed from March 1, 2018, to July 31, 2018. INTERVENTION Participants were randomized to (1) usual opportunistic screening during a healthcare visit (n=260), (2) mailed invitation to screen and reminder phone calls (n=261), or (3) mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach plus reminder calls (n=61). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main outcome under investigation was the completion of colorectal cancer screening within 6 months after randomization. RESULTS Of 782 participants in the trial, 53.9% were aged 60-75 years and 59.7% were African American. The screening rate was higher in the mailed fecal immunochemical test group (26.1%) compared with usual care (5.8%) (rate difference=20.3%, 95% CI=14.3%, 26.3%; RR=4.52, 95% CI=2.7, 7.7) or screening invitation (7.7%) (rate difference=18.4%, 95% CI=12.2%, 24.6%; RR=3.4, 95% CI=2.1, 5.4). Screening completion rates were similar between invitation and usual care (rate difference=1.9%, 95% CI= -2.4%, 6.2%; RR=1.3, 95% CI=0.7, 2.5). CONCLUSIONS Mailed fecal immunochemical test screening promotes colorectal cancer screening participation among veterans without a recent primary care encounter. Despite the addition of reminder calls, an invitation letter was no more effective in screening participation than screening during outpatient appointments. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02584998.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matthew A Goldshore
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Shivan J Mehta
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Woodrow Fletcher
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - George Tzanis
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Chyke A Doubeni
- Center for Health Equity and Community Engagement Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - E Carter Paulson
- Corporal Michael J. Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Ge Z, Li L, Lohfeld L, Lu C, Congdon N, Lin S, Deng Y, Lan Y, Zhang S, Hou L, Zhou W, Cui L, Qu J, Liang Y. Validity and feasibility of a self-administered home vision examination in Yueqing, China: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e030956. [PMID: 32303511 PMCID: PMC7199938 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate the validity and feasibility of a self-administered home vision examination programme in China. DESIGN Cross-sectional study. SETTING Yueqing, China. PARTICIPANTS A two-stage convenience sampling procedure was used to randomly select 600 households from 30 communities participating in the Yueqing Eye Study (YES). The aim of YES is to encourage home-based vision screening, reporting of visual acuity (VA) annually through social media and encouraging people to attend follow-up clinic appointments as a way to improve eye care access for adults with VA ≤+0.5 log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR). INTERVENTIONS Household screeners (one per household) who tested other family members' VA completed a questionnaire on family structure, demographic information and knowledge about screening procedures. Other family members then underwent confirmatory VA testing by researchers. OUTCOME MEASURES The completion rate of home-based VA screening, its sensitivity and specificity were used to evaluate validity. Factors that determined whether families participated in the self-VA screening were used to evaluate feasibility. RESULTS 345 (66%) of the 523 (87.2%) households with valid data form their home-based vision examinations also were retested by researchers. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the family-administerd or researcher-administerd VA test (VA≤+0.5 logMAR, p=0.607; VA >+0.5 logMAR, p=0.612). The sensitivity and specificity of home-based vision screening were 80.5% (95% CI 70.2% to 86.9%) and 95.1% (95% CI 92.6% to 96.8%), respectively. 14.7% (77/523) of tested respondents had VA ≤+0.5 logMAR. Predictors of performing home screening for VA remaining in regression models included higher economic status ('fair and above' vs 'poor': OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.76; p=0.022), age (<45 years vs ≥45 years: OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.85; p=0.014) and living in a nuclear (OR 5.17; 95% CI 2.86 to 9.36; p<0.001) or extended family (OR 8.37; 95% CI 4.93 to 14.20; p<0.001). CONCLUSION Self-administered home vision screening is reliable and highly accepted by Chinese adults.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhengyan Ge
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Linshan Li
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Lynne Lohfeld
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Chunjie Lu
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Nathan Congdon
- Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Belfast, UK
- State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Sigeng Lin
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Yuxuan Deng
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Yuan Lan
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Shaodan Zhang
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Laurence Hou
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Weihe Zhou
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Lele Cui
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Jia Qu
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| | - Yuanbo Liang
- The Affiliated Eye Hospital, School of Ophthalmology and Optometry, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to increase cancer screening participation in rural areas: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2020; 101:103401. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103401] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/19/2019] [Revised: 08/12/2019] [Accepted: 08/15/2019] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
|
13
|
Jager M, Demb J, Asghar A, Selby K, Mello EM, Heskett KM, Lieberman AJ, Geng Z, Bharti B, Singh S, Gupta S. Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64:2489-2496. [PMID: 30915656 PMCID: PMC6706307 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-019-05587-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 61] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2019] [Accepted: 03/08/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
Mailed outreach promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with a stool blood test kit may increase participation, but magnitude and consistency of benefit of this intervention strategy is uncertain. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mailed outreach offering stool tests to usual care, clinic-based screening offers on CRC screening uptake in the USA. We performed a systematic literature search of five databases for RCTs of mailed outreach from January 1980 through June 2017. Primary outcome was screening completion, summarized using random-effects meta-analysis as pooled differences in proportion completing the screening and relative risk of achieving screening compared to control. Subgroup analyses by test type offered-fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT), the presence of telephone reminders, and the presence of predominant underserved/minority population within study were performed. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Seven RCTs which enrolled 12,501 subjects were included (n = 5703 assigned mailed outreach and n = 6798 usual care). Mailed outreach resulted in a 28% absolute (95% CI 25-30%; I2 = 47%) and a 2.8-fold relative (RR 2.65, 95% CI 2.03-3.45; I2 = 92%) increase in screening completion compared to usual care, with a number needed to invite estimated to be 3.6. Similar outcomes were observed across subgroups. Overall body of evidence was at moderate quality. Mailed outreach offering a gFOBT or FIT is associated with a large and consistent increase in CRC screening completion and should be considered for more widespread implementation for improving screening rates nationwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Jager
- San Diego State University, San Diego, USA
| | - Josh Demb
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA
| | - Ali Asghar
- Department of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA
| | - Kevin Selby
- Department of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, USA
| | | | | | | | - Zhuo Geng
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
| | | | - Siddharth Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA
- Division of Biomedical Informatics, University of California San Diego, San Diego, USA
| | - Samir Gupta
- Moores Cancer Center, UC San Diego, San Diego, USA.
- Division of Gastroenterology, VA San Diego Healthcare System, 3350 La Jolla Village Drive MC 111D, San Diego, CA, 92161, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
McDaniel JT, Albright D, Lee HY, Patrick S, McDermott RJ, Jenkins WD, Diehr AJ, Jurkowski E. Rural–urban disparities in colorectal cancer screening among military service members and Veterans. JOURNAL OF MILITARY, VETERAN AND FAMILY HEALTH 2019. [DOI: 10.3138/jmvfh.2018-0013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Introduction: Little is known about rural–urban disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among the military service member and Veteran (SMV) population in the United States. Given that health care access is a challenge in rural areas, we sought to determine whether rural-dwelling Veterans were less likely to be screened for CRC than urban-dwelling Veterans. Methods: Secondary data for this cross-sectional study were retrieved from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System for a national sample of non-institutionalized SMVs ( N = 63,919). The influence of rurality on CRC screening among SMVs was determined using maximum likelihood multiple logistic regression. Results: After controlling for relevant covariates, rurality was independently associated with decreased likelihood of meeting guidelines for CRC screening among SMVs (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.90). Discussion: Innovative interventions for CRC screening should target SMVs in rural areas because doing so may lower mortality from CRC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Justin T. McDaniel
- Department of Public Health and Recreation Professions, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
| | - David Albright
- School of Social Work, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
| | - Hee Yun Lee
- School of Social Work, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
| | - Sarah Patrick
- Jackson County Health Department, Murphysboro, Illinois, USA
| | - Robert J. McDermott
- Department of Public Health and Recreation Professions, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
| | - Wiley D. Jenkins
- Department of Population Science and Policy, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois, USA
| | - Aaron J. Diehr
- Department of Public Health and Recreation Professions, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
| | - Elaine Jurkowski
- School of Social Work, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Issaka RB, Avila P, Whitaker E, Bent S, Somsouk M. Population health interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical tests: A systematic review. Prev Med 2019; 118:113-121. [PMID: 30367972 PMCID: PMC6322951 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2018] [Revised: 09/07/2018] [Accepted: 10/20/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Despite clear evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality, screening, including fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), is underutilized. We conducted a systematic review to determine the evidence of efficacy of interventions to improve FIT completion that could be scaled and utilized in population health management. We systematically searched publication databases for studies evaluating provider- or system-level interventions to improve CRC screening by FIT between 1 January 1996 and 13 December 2017 without language restrictions. Twenty articles describing 25 studies were included, 23 were randomized controlled trials with 1 quasi-experimental and 1 observational study. Ten studies discussed mailed FIT outreach, 4 pre-FIT patient reminders, 3 tailored patient messages, 2 post-FIT reminders, 2 paired FIT with influenza vaccinations, 2 provider alerts and 1 study each described the use of high-quality small media and patient financial incentives. Mailed FIT outreach was consistently effective with median improvement in CRC screening of 21.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 13.6%-29.0%). FIT paired with vaccinations led to a median 15.9% (IQR 15.6%-16.3%) improvement, while pre-FIT and post-FIT reminders demonstrated modest efficacy with median 4.1% (IQR 3.6%-6.7%) and 3.1% (IQR 2.9%-3.3%) improvement in CRC screening, respectively. More than half the studies were at high or unclear risk of bias; heterogeneous study designs and characteristics precluded meta-analysis. FIT-based CRC screening programs utilizing multilevel interventions (e.g. mailed FIT outreach, FIT paired with other preventative services, and provider alerts) have the potential to significantly increase screening participation. However, such programs must also follow-up patients with abnormal FIT results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel B Issaka
- Clinical Research & Public Health Sciences Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America; Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, United States of America; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States of America.
| | - Patrick Avila
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Evans Whitaker
- University of California San Francisco Medical Library, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Stephen Bent
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| | - Ma Somsouk
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America; Center for Vulnerable Populations, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, Gupta S, Wheeler SB, Coker-Schwimmer M, Cubillos L, Malo T, Reuland DS. Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178:1645-1658. [PMID: 30326005 PMCID: PMC6583619 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 212] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael K Dougherty
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Alison T Brenner
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Seth D Crockett
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Shivani Gupta
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Manny Coker-Schwimmer
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Laura Cubillos
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Teri Malo
- Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Daniel S Reuland
- Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.,Division of General Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Mehta SJ, Khan T, Guerra C, Reitz C, McAuliffe T, Volpp KG, Asch DA, Doubeni CA. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Opt-in Versus Opt-Out Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113:1848-1854. [PMID: 29925915 PMCID: PMC6768589 DOI: 10.1038/s41395-018-0151-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2018] [Accepted: 05/14/2018] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES METHODS:: RESULTS:: Patients randomized to opt-in agreed to participate 23.1% of the time, and only 2.5% of those in opt-out chose not to participate. FIT kits were mailed to 22.4% and 93% of patients in opt-in and opt-out arms, respectively. In intention-to-screen analysis, patients in the opt-out arm had a higher FIT completion rate (29.1%) than in the opt-in arm (9.6%) (absolute difference 19.5%; 95% confidence interval, 10.9-27.9%; P < .001). Results were similar in subgroup analysis of those sent initial messaging through the EHR portal (9.5% opt-in versus 37.5% in opt-out). CONCLUSIONS .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shivan J Mehta
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Tanya Khan
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Carmen Guerra
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Catherine Reitz
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Timothy McAuliffe
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Kevin G Volpp
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David A Asch
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Chyke A Doubeni
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Brenner A, Rhode J, Yang JY, Baker D, Drechsel R, Plescia M, Reuland DS, Wroth T, Wheeler S. Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer 2018; 124:3346-3354. [PMID: 30004577 PMCID: PMC6446899 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31566] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2017] [Revised: 04/18/2018] [Accepted: 04/23/2018] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective but underused. Screening rates are lower among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other insured populations. No studies have examined mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based outreach programs for Medicaid beneficiaries. METHODS In a patient-level randomized controlled trial, a mailed CRC screening reminder plus FIT, sent from an urban health department to Medicaid beneficiaries, was compared with the same reminder without FIT. The reminder group could request FIT. Completed FIT kits were processed by the health department laboratory. Respondents were notified of normal results by mail. Abnormal results were given via phone by a patient navigator who provided counselling and assistance with follow-up care. The primary outcome was FIT return. RESULTS In all, 2144 beneficiaries at average CRC risk were identified, and there was no evidence of screening with Medicaid claims data. To the reminder+FIT group, 1071 were randomized, and 1073 were randomized to the reminder group; 307 (28.7%) in the reminder+FIT group and 347 (32.3%) in the reminder group were unreachable or ineligible (previous screening). The FIT return rate was significantly higher in the reminder+FIT group than the reminder group (21.1% vs 12.3%; difference, 8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 3.7%-13.9%; P < .01). Eighteen individuals (7.2%) who completed FIT tests had abnormal results, and 15 were eligible for follow-up colonoscopy; 66.7% (n = 10) completed follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS A health department-based, mailed FIT program targeting Medicaid beneficiaries was feasible. Including a FIT kit resulted in greater screening completion than a reminder letter alone. Further research is needed to understand the comparative cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison Brenner
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jewels Rhode
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Jeff Y Yang
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Dana Baker
- Community Care Partners of Greater Mecklenburg, Charlotte, NC
| | | | - Marcus Plescia
- Mecklenburg County Public Health Department, Charlotte, NC
| | - Daniel S Reuland
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Tom Wroth
- Community Care Network of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC
| | - Stephanie Wheeler
- University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Division of General Medicine & Clinical Epidemiology, Chapel Hill, NC
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Chapel Hill, NC
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Eberth JM, Josey MJ, Mobley LR, Nicholas DO, Jeffe DB, Odahowski C, Probst JC, Schootman M. Who Performs Colonoscopy? Workforce Trends Over Space and Time. J Rural Health 2017; 34:138-147. [PMID: 29143383 DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12286] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2017] [Revised: 09/01/2017] [Accepted: 10/16/2017] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE With the increased availability of colonoscopy to average risk persons due to insurance coverage benefit changes, we sought to identify changes in the colonoscopy workforce. We used outpatient discharge records from South Carolina between 2001 and 2010 to examine shifts over time and in urban versus rural areas in the types of medical providers who perform colonoscopy, and the practice settings in which they occur, and to explore variation in colonoscopy volume across facility and provider types. METHODS Using an all-payer outpatient discharge records database from South Carolina, we conducted a retrospective analysis of all colonoscopy procedures performed between 2001 and 2010. FINDINGS We identified a major shift in the type of facilities performing colonoscopy in South Carolina since 2001, with substantial gains in ambulatory surgery settings (2001: 15, 2010: 34, +127%) versus hospitals (2001: 58, 2010: 59, +2%), particularly in urban areas (2001: 12, 2010: 27, +125%). The number of internists (2001: 46, 2010: 76) and family physicians (2001: 34, 2010: 106) performing colonoscopies also increased (+65% and +212%, respectively), while their annual procedures volumes stayed fairly constant. Significant variation in annual colonoscopy volume was observed across medical specialties (P < .001), with nongastroenterologists having lower volumes versus gastroenterologists and colon and rectal surgeons. CONCLUSIONS There have been substantial changes over time in the number of facilities and physicians performing colonoscopy in South Carolina since 2001, particularly in urban counties. Findings suggest nongastroenterologists are meeting a need for colonoscopies in rural areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan M Eberth
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, and South Carolina Rural Health Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
| | - Michele J Josey
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, and South Carolina Rural Health Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
| | - Lee R Mobley
- Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Davidson O Nicholas
- Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.,Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Donna B Jeffe
- Division of General Medical Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Cassie Odahowski
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Statewide Cancer Prevention and Control Program, and South Carolina Rural Health Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
| | - Janice C Probst
- Department of Health Services Policy and Management and South Carolina Rural Health Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina
| | - Mario Schootman
- Department of Epidemiology, College for Public Health and Social Justice, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Davis MM, Renfro S, Pham R, Hassmiller Lich K, Shannon J, Coronado GD, Wheeler SB. Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: A multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data. Prev Med 2017; 101:44-52. [PMID: 28506715 PMCID: PMC6067672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2016] [Revised: 04/25/2017] [Accepted: 05/07/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be attenuated through guideline concordant screening and intervention. This study used Medicaid and commercial claims data to examine individual and geographic factors associated with CRC testing rates in one state (Oregon). A total of 64,711 beneficiaries (4516 Medicaid; 60,195 Commercial) became newly age-eligible for CRC screening and met inclusion criteria (e.g., continuously enrolled, no prior history) during the study period (January 2010-December 2013). We estimated multilevel models to examine predictors for CRC testing, including individual (e.g., gender, insurance, rurality, access to care, distance to endoscopy facility) and geographic factors at the county level (e.g., poverty, uninsurance). Despite insurance coverage, only two out of five (42%) beneficiaries had evidence of CRC testing during the four year study window. CRC testing varied from 22.4% to 46.8% across Oregon's 36 counties; counties with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had lower levels of testing. After controlling for age, beneficiaries had greater odds of receiving CRC testing if they were female (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), commercially insured, or urban residents (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). Accessing primary care (OR 2.47, 95% CI 2.37-2.57), but not distance to endoscopy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-1.03) was associated with testing. CRC testing in newly age-eligible Medicaid and commercial members remains markedly low. Disparities exist by gender, geographic residence, insurance coverage, and access to primary care. Work remains to increase CRC testing to acceptable levels, and to select and implement interventions targeting the counties and populations in greatest need.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melinda M Davis
- Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States; Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States; OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
| | - Stephanie Renfro
- Center for Health Systems Effectiveness, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
| | - Robyn Pham
- Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
| | - Kristen Hassmiller Lich
- Department of Health Policy & Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
| | - Jackilen Shannon
- OHSU-PSU School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.
| | - Gloria D Coronado
- Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, OR, United States.
| | - Stephanie B Wheeler
- Department of Health Policy & Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Center for Health Promotion & Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Christy SM, Davis SN, Williams KR, Zhao X, Govindaraju SK, Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, Lin HY, Sutton SK, Roethzeim RR, Shibata D, Meade CD, Gwede CK. A community-based trial of educational interventions with fecal immunochemical tests for colorectal cancer screening uptake among blacks in community settings. Cancer 2016; 122:3288-3296. [PMID: 27420119 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30207] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2016] [Revised: 05/03/2016] [Accepted: 05/27/2016] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intervention studies among individuals in diverse community settings are needed to reduce health disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and mortality rates. The current study compared the efficacy of 2 intervention conditions promoting CRC screening among black individuals. METHODS Black individuals ages 50 to 75 years (N = 330) were recruited in community settings in 4 Tampa Bay counties. After obtaining consent and conducting a baseline interview to assess sociodemographic and health-related variables, participants received either a culturally targeted CRC photonovella booklet plus a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit or a standard CRC screening brochure plus an FIT kit. The primary outcome was FIT kit screening uptake. RESULTS FIT screening uptake at 6 months was 86.7% overall (90.3% in the brochure group and 81.9% in the photonovella group). Controlling for baseline between-group differences, there was no influence of intervention on FIT kit uptake (P = .756). Significant predictors of not returning an FIT kit included being unable to work (P = .010), having higher religious belief scores (P = .015), and living farther from the cancer center (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS Providing FIT kits and educational print materials to black individuals in community settings resulted in high rates of CRC screening. The study also identified subgroups of participants who were less likely to return an FIT kit and provides insight for future interventions. Cancer 2016;122:3288-3296. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M Christy
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | - Stacy N Davis
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Kimberly R Williams
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Xiuhua Zhao
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Swapomthi K Govindaraju
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Gwendolyn P Quinn
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | - Susan T Vadaparampil
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Hui-Yi Lin
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,School of Public Health, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
| | - Steven K Sutton
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | - Richard R Roethzeim
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | - David Shibata
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.,Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee
| | - Cathy D Meade
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
| | - Clement K Gwede
- Division of Population Science, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. .,Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
The effectiveness of FOBT vs. FIT: A meta-analysis on colorectal cancer screening test. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016; 30:366. [PMID: 27493910 PMCID: PMC4972062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2015] [Accepted: 11/16/2015] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND After lung and prostate cancers, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and the second most common cancer in women after breast cancer worldwide. Every year, more than one million people are diagnosed with colorectal cancer worldwide and half of these patients die from this disease, making it the fourth leading cause of death in the world. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness of the two colorectal diagnostic tests of FOBT (fecal occult blood test) and FIT (fecal immunochemical test)) in terms of technical performance. METHODS To retrieve the relevant evidence, appropriate medical databases such as Cochrane library, NHSEED, Scopus and Google scholar were searched from February 2013 to July 2014, using free-texts and Mesh. In this study, inclusion/exclusion criteria of the papers, randomized controlled trials, economic evaluations, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and meta-syntheses of the effectiveness of FIT versus FOBT tests in moderate-risk populations (age: 50 to 70 years), which had reported the least of such outcomes as sensitivity, specificity and clinical outcomes were reviewed. The analyses of the effectiveness outcomes were performed in the form of meta-analysis. RESULTS Five papers were eligible to be included in the final phase of the study for synthesis. FIT showed a better performance in participation and positivity rate. Moreover, in terms of false positive and negative rate, FIT showed fewer rates compared to FOBT (RR:-4.06; 95% CI (-7.89-0.24), and NN-scope (Number need to scope) (2.2% vs. 1.6%), and NN-screen (Number need to screen) (84% vs. 31-49% in different cut off levels) showed significant differences in FOBT vs. FIT, respectively. CONCLUSION In the five included studies (3, 11-14), the acceptability of FIT was more than FOBT. However, in our meta-analysis, no difference was found between the two tests. FIT was significant in positivity rate and had a better performance in participation rate, and a fewer false negative numbers compared to FOBT.
Collapse
|
23
|
Veterans' Continued Participation in an Annual Fecal Immunochemical Test Mailing Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening. J Am Board Fam Med 2015; 28:494-7. [PMID: 26152441 PMCID: PMC4784230 DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.04.140241] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine what proportion of veterans previously screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) would be willing to undergo a second round of FIT screening. METHODS Patients in the Iowa City Veterans Affairs Health Care System (<65 years old, asymptomatic, average risk, overdue for CRC screening) who completed a mailed FIT (April 2011 to May 2012) were contacted 1 year later by telephone to collect demographic and recent CRC screening information, and were offered a second mailed FIT if eligible. RESULTS Of 204 veterans who completed initial FIT testing, 159 were eligible to participate in a second round of FIT screening; 132 (83%) participated in the telephone survey, and 126 (79%) completed a second annual FIT, with 10 (8%) individuals testing positive. The majority of participants (67%) reported being more likely to take a yearly FIT than a colonoscopy every 10 years. Participants overwhelmingly reported that the FIT was easy to use and convenient (89%), and they were likely to complete a mailed FIT each year (97%). CONCLUSIONS Those willing to take a mailed FIT seem satisfied with this method and willing to do it annually. Population-based or provider-based FIT mailing programs have the potential to increase CRC screening in overdue populations.
Collapse
|
24
|
Ojinnaka CO, Choi Y, Kum HC, Bolin JN. Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening: Does Rurality Play a Role? J Rural Health 2015; 31:254-68. [PMID: 25599819 DOI: 10.1111/jrh.12104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to explore the associations between sociodemographic factors such as residence, health care access, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among residents of Texas. METHODS Using the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, we performed logistic regression analyses to determine predictors of CRC screening among Texas residents, including rural versus urban differences. Our outcomes of interest were previous (1) CRC screening using any CRC test, (2) fecal occult blood test (FOBT), or (3) endoscopy, as well as up-to-date screening using (4) any CRC test, (5) FOBT, or (6) endoscopy. The independent variable of interest was rural versus urban residence; we controlled for other sociodemographic and health care access variables such as lack of health insurance. RESULTS Multivariate analysis showed that individuals who were residents of a rural/non-Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) location (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51-0.97) or a suburban county (OR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.39-0.95) were less likely to report ever having any CRC screening compared to residents of a center city of an MSA. Residents of a rural/non-MSA location were less likely (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.28-0.87) than residents of a center city of an MSA to be up-to-date using FOBT. There was decreased likelihood of ever being screened for CRC among the uninsured (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.31-0.59). CONCLUSIONS Effective development and implementation of strategies to improve screening rates should aim at improving access to health care, taking into account demographic characteristics such as rural versus urban residence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chinedum O Ojinnaka
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Public Health, College Station, Texas
| | - Yong Choi
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Public Health, College Station, Texas
| | - Hye-Chung Kum
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Public Health, College Station, Texas
| | - Jane N Bolin
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Texas A&M Health Science Center School of Public Health, College Station, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Schlichting JA, Mengeling MA, Makki NM, Malhotra A, Halfdanarson TR, Klutts JS, Levy BT, Kaboli PJ, Charlton ME. Increasing colorectal cancer screening in an overdue population: participation and cost impacts of adding telephone calls to a FIT mailing program. J Community Health 2014; 39:239-47. [PMID: 24499966 DOI: 10.1007/s10900-014-9830-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Many people who live in rural areas face distance barriers to colonoscopy. Our previous study demonstrated the utility of mailing fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to average risk patients overdue for colorectal cancer (CRC screening). The aims of this study were to determine if introductory and reminder telephone calls would increase the proportion of returned FITs as well as to compare costs. Average risk patients overdue for CRC screening received a high intensity intervention (HII), which included an introductory telephone call to see if they were interested in taking a FIT prior to mailing the test out and reminder phone calls if the FIT was not returned. This HII group was compared to our previous low intensity intervention (LII) where a FIT was mailed to a similar group of veterans with no telephone contact. While a higher proportion of eligible respondents returned FITs in the LII (92 vs. 45 %), there was a much higher proportion of FITs returned out of those mailed in the HII (85 vs. 14 %). The fewer wasted FITs in the HII led to it having lower cost per FIT returned ($27.43 vs. $44.86). Given that either intervention is a feasible approach for patients overdue for CRC screening, health care providers should consider offering FITs using a home-based mailing program along with other evidence-based CRC screening options to average risk patients. Factors such as location, patient population, FIT cost and reimbursement, and personnel costs need to be considered when deciding the most effective way to implement FIT screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer A Schlichting
- VA Office of Rural Health, Rural Health Resource Center - Central Region, Iowa City VA Healthcare System, 601 Hwy 6 West, Iowa City, IA, 52246, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|