Influence of primary care use on population delivery of colorectal cancer screening

Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake: Differences Between Rural and Urban Privately-Insured Population

Earlier studies investigated rural-urban colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities among older adults or used surveys. The objective was to compare screening uptake between rural and urban individuals 50–64 years of age using private health insurance. Data were analyzed from 58,774 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska beneficiaries. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between rural-urban and CRC screening use. Results indicate that rural individuals were 56% more likely to use the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) compared with urban residents, but rural females were 68% less likely to use FOBT. Individuals with few Primary Care Physician (PCP) visits and rural-women are the least to receive screening. To enhance CRC screening, a policy should be devised for the training and placement of female PCP in rural areas. In particular, multilevel interventions, including education, more resources, and policies to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, are needed. Further research is warranted to investigate barriers to CRC screening in rural areas.

Time to fecal immunochemical test completion for colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVES

Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can efficiently screen for colorectal cancer (CRC), but little is known on the timing to their completion. We investigate the time to return of a FIT following an order and describe patient characteristics associated with FIT return.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

We identified 63,478 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington, aged 50 to 74 years, who received a FIT order from 2011 through 2012. Patient characteristics were ascertained through administrative and electronic health record data sources. We compared time from FIT order to return by patient characteristics using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods.

RESULTS

About half (53.7%) of members completed a FIT. Median time from order to return was 13 days (mean, 44.5 days; interquartile range, 6-42 days). There was higher completion of FITs among Asian patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.48), black patients (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.19), and Hispanic patients (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16) compared with white patients; among patients with recent CRC testing (vs no testing in past 2 years; HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.86-1.95); and among patients with Medicare insurance (vs commercial; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37). Factors associated with decreased FIT completion included younger age (50-54 years vs 70-74 years; HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.92), obesity (vs normal body mass index; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.91), and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score (≥3 vs 0; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.79-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Time to return of FIT varies by patient characteristics. We observed greater FIT completion among people of color, suggesting that racial disparities in CRC may not be due to patient completion of the test after an order is received.

Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening

The impact of patient-physician communication on subsequent patient behavior has rarely been evaluated in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions. We describe physicians' use of persuasive techniques when recommending CRC screening and evaluate its association with patients' subsequent adherence to screening. Audio recordings of N = 414 periodic health examinations were joined with screening use data from electronic medical records and pre-/post-visit patient surveys. The association between persuasion and screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. According to observer ratings, primary care physicians frequently use persuasive techniques (63 %) when recommending CRC screening, most commonly argument or refutation. However, physician persuasion was not associated with subsequent screening adherence. Physician use of persuasion may be a common vehicle for information provision during CRC screening discussions; however, our results do not support the sole reliance on persuasive techniques if the goal is to improve adherence to recommended screening.

Increasing colon cancer screening in primary care among African Americans

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to determine the effect of preference-based tailored navigation on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence and related outcomes among African Americans (AAs).

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial that included 764 AA patients who were age 50 to 75 years, were eligible for CRC screening, and had received care through primary care practices in Philadelphia. Consented patients completed a baseline telephone survey and were randomized to either a Standard Intervention (SI) group (n = 380) or a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) group (n = 384). The SI group received a mailed stool blood test kit plus colonoscopy instructions, and a reminder. The TNI group received tailored navigation (a mailed stool blood test kit or colonoscopy instructions based on preference, plus telephone navigation) and a reminder. A six-month survey and a 12-month medical records review were completed to assess screening adherence, change in overall screening preference, and perceptions about screening. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess intervention impact on outcomes.

RESULTS

At six months, adherence in the TNI group was statistically significantly higher than in the SI group (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.9). Positive change in overall screening preference was also statistically significantly greater in the TNI group compared with the SI group (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.3). There were no statistically significant differences in perceptions about screening between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored navigation in primary care is a promising approach for increasing CRC screening among AAs. Research is needed to determine how to maximize intervention effects and to test intervention impact on race-related disparities in mortality and survival.

Preventive care receipt and office visit use among breast and colorectal cancer survivors relative to age- and gender-matched cancer-free controls

PURPOSE

We compare breast and colorectal cancer survivors' annual receipt of preventive care and office visits to that of age- and gender-matched cancer-free controls.

METHODS

Automated data, including tumor registries, were used to identify insured individuals aged 50+ at the time of breast or colorectal cancer diagnosis between 2000 and 2008 as well as cancer-free controls receiving care from four integrated delivery systems. Those with metastatic or un-staged disease, or a prior cancer diagnosis were excluded. Annual visits to primary care, oncology, and surgery as well as receipt of mammography, colorectal cancer, Papanicolaou, bone densitometry, and cholesterol screening were observed for 5 years. We used generalized estimating equations that accounted for repeated observations over time per person to test annual service use differences by cancer survivor/cancer-free control status and whether survivor/cancer-free status associations were moderated by patient age <65 years and calendar year of diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 3743 breast and 1530 colorectal cancer survivors were identified, representing 12,923 and 5103 patient-years of follow-up, respectively. Compared to cancer-free controls, breast and colorectal cancer survivors were equally or more likely to use all types of office visits and to receive cancer screenings and bone densitometry testing. Both breast and colorectal cancer survivors were less likely than cancer-free controls to receive cholesterol testing, regardless of age, year of diagnosis, or use of primary care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Programs targeting cancer survivors may benefit from addressing a broad range of primary preventive care needs, including recommended cardiovascular disease screening.

Patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake in newly eligible men and women

BACKGROUND

We describe patterns of colorectal cancer screening uptake in a U.S. insured population as individuals become newly eligible for screening at age 50 and assess temporal trends and patient characteristics with screening uptake.

METHODS

We identified a cohort of 81,223 men and women who were members of Group Health and turned 50 years old from 1996 to 2010. We ascertained receipt of colorectal cancer screening within five years. Time to screening was estimated by year of cohort entry using cumulative incidence curves and Cox proportional hazards models-estimated patient characteristics associated with screening uptake.

RESULTS

Stool-based screening tests were the most common, 72% of first screening tests. The proportion of individuals initiating colorectal cancer screening via colonoscopy increased from 8% in 1996 to 1998 to 33% in 2008 to 2010. Patient factors associated with increased colorectal cancer screening were: turning 50 more recently (2008-2010; Ptrend < 0.0001) or Asian race [HR, 1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.10-1.19]. Patient factors associated with decreased screening were: being a woman (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.68-0.72), Native American (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.78), or Pacific Islander race (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), and having prevalent diabetes (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.82) and higher body mass index (Ptrend < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics associated with initiation of colorectal cancer screening in a newly eligible population are similar to characteristics associated with overall screening participation in all age-eligible adults. Our results identify patient populations to target in outreach programs.

IMPACT

Disparities in receipt of colorectal cancer screening are evident from onset of an age-eligible cohort, identifying key groups for future interventions for screening.

Patient-physician colorectal cancer screening discussion content and patients' use of colorectal cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends using the 5As (i.e., Assess, Advise, Agree, Assist and Arrange) when discussing preventive services. We evaluate the association of the 5As discussion during primary care office visits with patients' subsequent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening use.

METHODS

Audio-recordings of n=443 periodic health exams among insured patients aged 50-80 years and due for CRC screening were joined with pre-visit patient surveys and screening use data from an electronic medical record. Association of the 5As with CRC screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

93% of patients received a recommendation for screening (Advise) and 53% were screened in the following year. The likelihood of screening increased as the number of 5A steps increased: compared to patients whose visit contained no 5A step, those whose visit contained 1-2 steps (OR=2.96 [95% CI 1.16, 7.53]) and 3 or more steps (4.98 [95% CI 1.84, 13.44]) were significantly more likely to use screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician CRC screening recommendations that include recommended 5A steps are associated with increased patient adherence.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A CRC screening recommendation (Advise) that also describes patient eligibility (Assess) and provides help to obtain screening (Assist) may lead to improved adherence to CRC screening.

Improving hepatocellular carcinoma screening: applying lessons from colorectal cancer screening

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening is a complex process, with failure at any step in the process contributing to a gap between its efficacy and effectiveness. Important lessons can be learned from colorectal cancer (CRC) screening studies to improve the HCC screening process in clinical practice. Lack of provider recommendations is a barrier for both CRC and HCC screening; however, under-recognition of at-risk individuals appears to be unique to HCC. Future HCC screening interventions should help providers identify at-risk patients as well as promote ordering of HCC screening among those with cirrhosis. Patient adherence, a well-recognized barrier to CRC screening, does not appear to be a major issue in HCC screening. Poor patient adherence may become an important factor in the future when upstream provider-level factors are addressed. Other steps in the screening process, including radiology capacity and timely follow-up, have been demonstrated as barriers for CRC screening but have yet to be assessed for HCC screening. Overall, many lessons learned from challenges to CRC screening can be applied to rapidly optimize HCC screening delivery.

Perception of colonoscopy benefits: a gap in patient knowledge?

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

Primary care utilization and colorectal cancer outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Primary medical care may improve colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes through increased use of CRC screening tests and earlier diagnosis. We examined the association between primary care utilization and CRC screening, stage at diagnosis, CRC mortality, and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients, aged 67 to 85 years, diagnosed as having CRC between 1994 and 2005 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database. Association of the number of visits to primary care physicians (PCPs) in the 3- to 27-month period before the CRC diagnosis and CRC screening, early-stage diagnosis, CRC mortality, and all-cause mortality were examined using multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The odds of CRC screening and early-stage diagnosis increased with increasing number of PCP visits (P < .001 for trend). Compared with persons having 0 or 1 PCP visit, patients with 5 to 10 visits had increased odds of ever receiving CRC screening at least 3 months before diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.48-2.72) and early-stage diagnosis (1.35; 1.29-1.42). Persons with 5 to 10 visits had 16% lower CRC mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88) and 6% lower all-cause mortality (0.94; 0.91-0.97) compared with persons with 0 or 1 visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare beneficiaries with CRC have better outcomes if they have greater utilization of primary care before diagnosis. Revitalization of primary care in the United States may help strengthen the national efforts to reduce the burden of CRC.

Physician visits and colorectal cancer testing among Medicare enrollees in North Carolina and South Carolina, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Many Medicare enrollees do not receive colorectal cancer tests at recommended intervals despite having Medicare screening coverage. Little is known about the physician visits of Medicare enrollees who are untested. Our study objective was to evaluate physician visits of enrollees who lack appropriate testing to identify opportunities to increase colorectal cancer testing.

METHODS

We used North Carolina and South Carolina Medicare data to compare type and frequency of physician visits for Medicare enrollees with and without a colorectal cancer test in 2005. Type of physician visit was defined by the physician specialty as primary care, mixed specialty (more than 1 specialty, 1 of which was primary care), and nonprimary care. We used multivariate modeling to assess the influence of type and frequency of physician visits on colorectal cancer testing.

RESULTS

Approximately half (46.5%) of enrollees lacked appropriate colorectal cancer testing. Among the untested group, 19.8% had no physician visits in 2005. Enrollees with primary care visits were more likely to be tested than those without a primary care visit. Many enrollees who had primary care visits remained untested. Enrollees with visits to all physician types had a greater likelihood of having colorectal cancer testing.

CONCLUSION

We identified 3 categories of Medicare enrollees without appropriate colorectal cancer testing: those with no visits, those who see primary care physicians only, and those with multiple visits to physicians with primary and nonprimary care specialties. Different strategies are needed for each category to increase colorectal cancer testing in the Medicare population.

Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control

Achieving adequate levels of uptake in cancer screening requires a variety of approaches that need to be shaped by the characteristics of both the screening programme and the target population. Strategies to improve uptake typically produce only incremental increases. Accordingly, approaches that combine behavioural, organisational and other strategies are most likely to succeed. In conjunction with a focus on uptake, providers of screening services need to promote informed decision making among invitees. Addressing inequalities in uptake must remain a priority for screening programmes. Evidence informing strategies targeting low-uptake groups is scarce, and more research is needed in this area. Cancer screening has the potential to make a major contribution to early diagnosis initiatives in the United Kingdom, and will best be achieved through uptake strategies that emphasise wide coverage, informed choice and equitable distribution of cancer screening services.