Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients

Integrating primary care, shared decision making, and community engagement to facilitate equitable access to multi-cancer early detection clinical trials

Effective implementation of cancer screening programs can reduce disease-specific incidence and mortality. Screening is currently recommended for breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer. However, initial and repeat adherence to screening tests in accordance with current guidelines is sub-optimal, with the lowest rates observed in historically underserved groups. If used in concert with recommended cancer screening tests, new biospecimen-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests could help to identify more cancers that may be amendable to effective treatment. Clinical trials designed to assess the safety and efficacy of MCED tests to assess their potential for reducing cancer mortality are needed and many are underway. In the conduct of MCED test trials, it is crucial that participant recruitment efforts successfully engage participants from diverse populations experiencing cancer disparities. Strategic partnerships involving health systems, clinical practices, and communities can increase the reach of MCED trial recruitment efforts among populations experiencing disparities. This goal can be achieved by developing health system-based learning communities that build understanding of and trust in biomedical research; and by applying innovative methods for identifying eligible trial patients, educating potential participants about research trials, and engaging eligible individuals in shared decision making (SDM) about trial participation. This article describes how a developing consortium of health systems has used this approach to encourage the uptake of cancer screening in a wide range of populations and how such a strategy can facilitate the enrollment of persons from diverse patient and community populations in MCED trials.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Improving Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC): Implementing a Patient Navigation and Practice Facilitation Intervention to Promote Health Equity

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in the prevention and early detection of cancer. Implementing evidence-based screening guidelines remains a challenge, especially in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), where current rates (43%) are lower than national goals (80%), and even lower in populations with limited English proficiency (LEP) who experience increased barriers to care related to systemic inequities.

METHODS

This quality improvement (QI) initiative began in 2016, focused on utilizing patient navigation and practice facilitation to addressing systemic inequities and barriers to care to increase CRC screening rates at an urban FQHC, with two clinical locations (the intervention and control sites) serving a diverse population through culturally tailored education and navigation.

RESULTS

Between August 2016 and December 2018, CRC screening rates increased significantly from 31% to 59% at the intervention site (p < 0.001), with the most notable change in patients with LEP. Since 2018 through December 2022, navigation and practice facilitation expanded to all clinics, and the overall CRC screening rates continued to increase from 43% to 50%, demonstrating the effectiveness of patient navigation to address systemic inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

This multilevel intervention addressed structural inequities and barriers to care by implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice, and combining patient navigation and practice facilitation to successfully increase the CRC screening rates at this FQHC.

Receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with tailored DVD and patient navigation interventions to promote cancer screening among rural women

Process evaluation is essential to understanding and interpreting the results of randomized trials testing the effects of behavioral interventions. A process evaluation was conducted as part of a comparative effectiveness trial testing a mailed, tailored interactive digital video disc (DVD) with and without telephone-based patient navigation (PN) to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening among rural women who were not up-to-date (UTD) for at least one screening test. Data on receipt, uptake, and satisfaction with the interventions were collected via telephone interviews from 542 participants who received the tailored interactive DVD (n = 266) or the DVD plus telephone-based PN (n = 276). All participants reported receiving the DVD and 93.0% viewed it. The most viewed sections of the DVD were about colorectal, followed by breast, then cervical cancer screening. Most participants agreed the DVD was easy to understand, helpful, provided trustworthy information, and gave information needed to make a decision about screening. Most women in the DVD+PN group, 98.2% (n = 268), reported talking with the navigator. The most frequently discussed cancer screenings were colorectal (86.8%) and breast (71.3%); 57.5% discussed cervical cancer screening. The average combined length of PN encounters was 22.2 minutes with 21.7 additional minutes spent on coordinating activities. Barriers were similar across screening tests with the common ones related to the provider/health care system, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness/too much bother, and personal issues. This evaluation provided information about the implementation and delivery of behavioral interventions as well as challenges encountered that may impact trial results.

Interventions for improving health literacy in migrants

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is a determinant of health and important for autonomous decision-making. Migrants are at high risk for limited HL. Improving HL is important for equitable promotion of migrants' health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for improving HL in migrants. To assess whether female or male migrants respond differently to the identified interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran electronic searches to 2 February 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL. We also searched trial registries. We used a study filter for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (RCT classifier).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs addressing HL either as a concept or its components (access, understand, appraise, apply health information).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and followed the PRISMA-E guidelines. Outcome categories were: a) HL, b) quality of life (QoL), c) knowledge, d) health outcomes, e) health behaviour, f) self-efficacy, g) health service use and h) adverse events. We conducted meta-analysis where possible, and reported the remaining results as a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs and six cluster-RCTs (8249 participants), all conducted in high-income countries. Participants were migrants with a wide range of conditions. All interventions were adapted to culture, language and literacy. We did not find evidence that HL interventions cause harm, but only two studies assessed adverse events (e.g. anxiety). Many studies reported results for short-term assessments (less than six weeks after total programme completion), reported here. For several comparisons, there were also findings at later time points, which are presented in the review text. Compared with no HL intervention (standard care/no intervention) or an unrelated HL intervention (similar intervention but different information topic) Self-management programmes (SMP) probably improve self-efficacy slightly (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.50; 2 studies, 333 participants; moderate certainty). SMP may improve HIV-related HL (understanding (mean difference (MD) 4.25, 95% CI 1.32 to 7.18); recognition of HIV terms (MD 3.32, 95% CI 1.28 to 5.36)) (1 study, 69 participants). SMP may slightly improve health behaviours (3 studies, 514 participants), but may have little or no effect on knowledge (2 studies, 321 participants) or subjective health status (MD 0.38, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.89; 1 study, 69 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain of the effects of SMP on QoL, health service use or adverse events due to a lack of evidence. HL skills building courses (HLSBC) may improve knowledge (MD 10.87, 95% CI 5.69 to 16.06; 2 studies, 111 participants) and any generic HL (SMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.75; 2 studies, 229 participants), but may have little or no effect on depression literacy (MD 0.17, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.62) or any health behaviour (2 studies, 229 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain if HLSBC improve QoL, health outcomes, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events, due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence. Audio-/visual education without personal feedback (AVE) probably improves depression literacy (MD 8.62, 95% CI 7.51 to 9.73; 1 study, 202 participants) and health service use (MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.07; 1 study, 157 participants), but probably has little or no effect on health behaviour (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 1 study, 135 participants) (moderate certainty). AVE may improve self-efficacy (MD 3.51, 95% CI 2.53 to 4.49; 1 study, 133 participants) and may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.44, 95% CI -2.56 to 19.44; 2 studies, 293 participants) and intention to seek depression treatment (MD 1.8, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.17), with little or no effect on depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.10) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL and adverse events. Adapted medical instruction may improve understanding of health information (3 studies, 478 participants), with little or no effect on medication adherence (MD 0.5, 95% CI -0.1 to 1.1; 1 study, 200 participants) (low certainty). No evidence was found for QoL, health outcomes, knowledge, health service use, self-efficacy or adverse events. Compared with written information on the same topic SMP probably improves health numeracy slightly (MD 0.7, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.25) and probably improves print literacy (MD 9, 95% CI 2.9 to 15.1; 1 study, 209 participants) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.47, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.64; 4 studies, 552 participants) (moderate certainty). SMP may improve any disease-specific HL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; 4 studies, 955 participants), knowledge (MD 11.45, 95% CI 4.75 to 18.15; 6 studies, 1101 participants) and some health behaviours (4 studies, 797 participants), with little or no effect on health information appraisal (MD 1.15, 95% CI -0.23 to 2.53; 1 study, 329 participants) (low certainty). We are uncertain whether SMP improves QoL, health outcomes, health service use or adverse events, due to a lack of evidence or low/very low-certainty evidence. AVE probably has little or no effect on diabetes HL (MD 2, 95% CI -0.15 to 4.15; 1 study, 240 participants), but probably improves information appraisal (MD -9.88, 95% CI -12.87 to -6.89) and application (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.77) (1 study, 608 participants; moderate certainty). AVE may slightly improve knowledge (MD 8.35, 95% CI -0.32 to 17.02; low certainty). No short-term evidence was found for QoL, depression, health behaviour, self-efficacy, health service use or adverse events. AVE compared with another AVE We are uncertain whether narrative videos are superior to factual knowledge videos as the evidence is of very low certainty. Gender differences Female migrants' diabetes HL may improve slightly more than that of males, when receiving AVE (MD 5.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.38; 1 study, 118 participants), but we do not know whether female or male migrants benefit differently from other interventions due to very low-certainty or a lack of evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Adequately powered studies measuring long-term effects (more than six months) of HL interventions in female and male migrants are needed, using well-validated tools and representing various healthcare systems.

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials on interventions aimed at promoting colorectal cancer screening amongst ethnic minorities

OBJECTIVES

Significant disparities exist between different ethnic groups when it comes to participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. A variety of interventions have been proposed to improve participation rates of ethnic minorities for CRC screening. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence available from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to identify effective interventions aimed at promoting CRC screening amongst underserved ethnic minorities.

DESIGN

We searched EmBASE, Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus and CINAHL for RCTs that analysed interventions to promote CRC screening in all ethnic minorities. CRC screening was measured as documented or self-reported screening rates. The protocol of this study was registered prospectively on PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42020216384.

RESULTS

We identified 42 relevant RCT articles, out of 1805 articles highlighted by the initial search. All except one were conducted in the US. The most frequently studied ethnic groups were African-Americans (33%), East Asians (30%), and Hispanics/Latinos (23%). In total, 7/42 (16%) RCTs had multiple arms. Interventions mainly intended to educate (52%), provide patient navigation services (21%), or provide a combination of these interventions (19%). We demonstrate that combination methods are most effective.

CONCLUSION

Many RCTs, mostly in the US, have trialed interventions aimed to increase CRC screening uptake amongst ethnic minorities to varying success. We conclude that using a combination of methods with patient navigation, education, and cultural tailoring is most effective at increasing CRC screening uptake amongst ethnic minorities. This highlights that multiple factors may hinder CRC screening and finding a one-size-fits-all solution that can be reliably implemented among different cultures and countries may be complex.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative

BACKGROUND

Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative.

METHODS

We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation.

RESULTS

ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.

Exploring the complexity and spectrum of racial/ethnic disparities in colon cancer management

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality across U.S. racial/ethnic groups. Existing studies often focus on a particular race/ethnicity or single domain within the care continuum. Granular exploration of disparities among different racial/ethnic groups across the entire colon cancer care continuum is needed. We aimed to characterize differences in colon cancer outcomes by race/ethnicity across each stage of the care continuum.

METHODS

We used the 2010-2017 National Cancer Database to examine differences in outcomes by race/ethnicity across six domains: clinical stage at presentation; timing of surgery; access to minimally invasive surgery; post-operative outcomes; utilization of chemotherapy; and cumulative incidence of death. Analysis was via multivariable logistic or median regression, with select demographics, hospital factors, and treatment details as covariates.

RESULTS

326,003 patients (49.6% female, 24.0% non-White, including 12.7% Black, 6.1% Hispanic/Spanish, 1.3% East Asian, 0.9% Southeast Asian, 0.4% South Asian, 0.3% AIAE, and 0.2% NHOPI) met inclusion criteria. Relative to non-Hispanic White patients: Southeast Asian (OR 1.39, p < 0.01), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.11 p < 0.01), and Black (OR 1.09, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of presenting with advanced clinical stage. Southeast Asian (OR 1.37, p < 0.01), East Asian (OR 1.27, p = 0.05), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.05 p = 0.02), and Black (OR 1.05, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of advanced pathologic stage. Black patients had increased odds of experiencing a surgical delay (OR 1.33, p < 0.01); receiving non-robotic surgery (OR 1.12, p < 0.01); having post-surgical complications (OR 1.29, p < 0.01); initiating chemotherapy more than 90 days post-surgery (OR 1.24, p < 0.01); and omitting chemotherapy altogether (OR 1.12, p = 0.05). Black patients had significantly higher cumulative incidence of death at every pathologic stage relative to non-Hispanic White patients when adjusting for non-modifiable patient factors (p < 0.05, all stages), but these differences were no longer statistically significant when also adjusting for modifiable factors such as insurance status and income.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-White patients disproportionately experience advanced stage at presentation. Disparities for Black patients are seen across the entire colon cancer care continuum. Targeted interventions may be appropriate for some groups; however, major system-level transformation is needed to address disparities experienced by Black patients.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Cancer Screening and Reduce Depression Among Low-Income Women

Low-income women of color receive fewer cancer screenings and have higher rates of depression, which can interfere with cancer screening participation. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness of two interventions for improving colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening participation and reducing depression among underserved women in Bronx, NY, with depression. This comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trial (RCT) with assessments at study entry, 6, and 12 months utilized an intent-to-treat statistical approach. Eligible women were aged 50 to 64, screened positive for depression, and were overdue for ≥ 1 cancer screening (colorectal, breast, and/or cervical). Participants were randomized to a collaborative depression care plus cancer screening intervention (CCI + PCM) or cancer screening intervention alone (PCM). Interventions were telephone-based, available in English or Spanish, delivered over 12 months, and facilitated by a skilled care manager. Cancer screening data were extracted from electronic health records. Depression was measured with a validated self-report instrument (PHQ-9). Seven hundred fifty seven women consented and were randomized (CCI + PCM, n = 378; PCM, n = 379). Analyses revealed statistically significant increases in up-to-date status for all three cancer screenings; depression improved in both intervention groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the interventions in improving cancer screening rates or reducing depression. CCI and PCM both improved breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and depression in clinical settings in underserved communities; however, neither intervention showed an advantage in outcomes. Decisions about which approach to implement may depend on the nature of the practice and alignment of the interventions with other ongoing priorities and resources.

Outreach to primary care patients in lung cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial

Current guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS), but rates are low. The current study evaluated strategies to increase LCS. This study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of patient outreach and shared decision making (SDM) about LCS among patients in four primary care practices. Patients 50 to 80 years of age and at high risk for lung cancer were randomized to Outreach Contact plus Decision Counseling (OC-DC, n = 314), Outreach Contact alone (OC, n = 314), or usual care (UC, n = 1748). LCS was significantly higher in the combined OC/OC-DC group versus UC controls (5.5% vs. 1.8%; hazard ratio, HR = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.98 to 5.41; p = 0.001). LCS was higher in the OC-DC group than in the OC group, although not significantly so (7% vs. 4%, respectively; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55; p = 0.123). LCS referral/scheduling was also significantly higher in the OC/OC-DC group compared to controls (11% v. 5%; odds ratio, OR = 2.02; p = 0.001). We observed a similar trend for appointment keeping, but the effect was not statistically significant (86% v. 76%; OR = 1.93; p = 0.351). Outreach contacts significantly increased LCS among primary care patients. Research is needed to assess the additional value of SDM on screening uptake.

Understanding the Implications of Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care in the US: A Review

Importance

Insurance status has been linked to important differences in cancer treatment and outcomes in the US. With more than 15 million individuals gaining health insurance through Medicaid expansion, there is an increasing need to understand the implications of this policy within the US cancer population. This review provides an overview of the fundamental principles and nuances of Medicaid expansion, as well as the implications for cancer care.

Observations

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act presented states with an option to expand Medicaid coverage by broadening the eligibility criteria (eg, raising the eligible income level). During the past 10 years, Medicaid expansion has been credited with a 30% reduction in the population of uninsured individuals in the US. Such a significant change in the insurance profile could have important implications for the 1.7 million patients diagnosed with cancer each year, the oncology teams that care for them, and policy makers. However, several factors may complicate efforts to characterize the effect of Medicaid expansion on the US cancer population. Most notably, there is considerable variation among states in terms of whether Medicaid expansion took place, when expansion occurred, eligibility criteria for Medicaid, and coverage types that Medicaid provides. In addition, economic and health policy factors may be intertwined with factors associated with Medicaid expansion. Finally, variability in the manner in which cancer care has been captured and depicted in large databases could affect the interpretation of findings associated with expansion.

Conclusions and Relevance

The expansion of Medicaid was a historic public policy initiative. To fully leverage this policy to improve oncological care and to maximize learning for subsequent policies, it is critical to understand the effect of Medicaid expansion. This review aims to better prepare investigators and their audiences to fully understand the implications of this important health policy initiative.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Colorectal cancer screening in Uruguay: current assessment and roadmap for the future

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide and is expected to remain a public health concern for years to come. Within Latin America, Uruguay has the highest colorectal cancer rates. Heeding past calls to action, in this article we provide a critical assessment of colorectal cancer needs and opportunities in Uruguay with a focus on developing a roadmap for future action. First, we provide an overview of risk factors, screening procedures and guidelines, and screening rates. Next, we provide an overview of psychosocial factors that influence colorectal cancer screening, with the goal of providing guidance for future behavioral health promotion initiatives in Uruguay. In this effort, we present four conceptual models that may be used for interventions: the ecological systems theory, informed decision-making, the health beliefs model, and the health literacy model. Subsequently, we propose using an integrated model based on the ecological systems theory and health literacy model to develop national, local, and community-based interventions to increase screening rates and lower the colorectal cancer burden in Uruguay. We close the paper with a summary and implications section, including recommendations for future research programs focused on the assessment of factors that influence screening.

A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (CRCS) facilitates early detection and lowers CRC mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To increase CRCS in a randomized trial of stepped interventions. Step 1 compared three modes of delivery of theory-informed minimal cue interventions. Step 2 was designed to more intensively engage those not completing CRCS after Step 1.

METHODS

Recruitment packets (60,332) were mailed to a random sample of individuals with a record of U.S. military service during the Vietnam-era. Respondents not up-to-date with CRCS were randomized to one of four Step 1 groups: automated telephone, telephone, letter, or survey-only control. Those not completing screening after Step 1 were randomized to one of three Step 2 groups: automated motivational interviewing (MI) call, counselor-delivered MI call, or Step 2 control. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses assessed CRCS on follow-up surveys mailed after each step.

RESULTS

After Step 1 (n = 1784), CRCS was higher in the letter, telephone, and automated telephone groups (by 1%, 5%, 7%) than in survey-only controls (43%), although differences were not statistically significant. After Step 2 (n = 516), there were nonsignificant increases in CRCS in the two intervention groups compared with the controls. CRCS following any combination of stepped interventions overall was 7% higher (P = 0.024) than in survey-only controls (55.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide study of Veterans, CRCS after each of two stepped interventions of varying modes of delivery did not differ significantly from that in controls. However, combined overall, the sequence of stepped interventions significantly increased CRCS.

Scripted tours through a giant inflatable colon: An innovative and effective educational tool in urban communities

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death among men and women in the US and mortality rates are increasing among young adults. Although CRC is largely preventable with screening and often curable when detected at an early stage, many age-appropriate individuals remain unscreened or are not currently up-to-date with screening. We aimed to examine the impact of providing guided, scripted tours through an inflatable colon on three domains: CRC knowledge, likelihood of communicating about CRC with others, and the intention to be screened for CRC in a diverse, urban population. The inflatable walk-through colon was exhibited at five community events in Franklin County, Ohio between March 2015 and August 2016. A pre and posttest research design and composite scores were stratified into three age groups (<45 years, 45-49 years and ≥ 50 years of age). Descriptive statistics were used to describe and compare demographic characteristics. Logistic regression was used to examine potential associations between demographic factors and the three outcomes of interest. These tours led to statistically significant increases in CRC knowledge, communication, and intention to undergo CRC screening among participants in all three age cohorts. In addition, the intention of undergo screening after a tour among individuals<45 years of age were nearly three times that of those older than 50 (OR = 2.66; 95%CI = 1.49-4.75). Overall, this study supports the use of scripted tours through an inflatable colon exhibit as a potentially effective intervention to increase age-appropriate CRC screening uptake.

Effectiveness of Patient Navigation to Increase Cancer Screening in Populations Adversely Affected by Health Disparities: a Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the effectiveness of patient navigation to increase screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in populations adversely affected by health care disparities.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through English-language searches of Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, SocINDEX, and Veterans Affairs Health Services database (January 1, 1996, to July 5, 2019) and manual review of reference lists. Randomized trials and observational studies of relevant populations that evaluated the effectiveness of patient navigation on screening rates for colorectal, breast, or cervical cancer compared with usual or alternative care comparison groups were included. Two investigators independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality and applicability using criteria adapted from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer. Results were combined using profile likelihood random effects models.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria (28 colorectal, 11 breast, 4 cervical cancers including 3 trials with multiple cancer types). Screening rates were higher with patient navigation for colorectal cancer overall (risk ratio [RR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42 to 1.92; I² = 93.7%; 22 trials) and by type of test (fecal occult blood or immunohistochemistry testing [RR 1.69; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.15; I² = 80.5%; 6 trials]; colonoscopy/endoscopy [RR 2.08; 95% CI 1.08 to 4.56; I² = 94.6%; 6 trials]). Screening was also higher with navigation for breast cancer (RR 1.50; 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; I² = 98.6%; 10 trials) and cervical cancer (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19; based on the largest trial). The high heterogeneity of cervical cancer studies prohibited meta-analysis. Results were similar for colorectal and breast cancer regardless of prior adherence to screening guidelines, follow-up time, and study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

In populations adversely affected by disparities, colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening rates were higher in patients provided navigation services. Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42018109263.

Effects of nurse-led interventions on early detection of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early detection of cancer serves an important strategy for cancer control, but its uptake rate remains relatively limited. Nurse-led interventions may have potential benefits for the early detection of cancer, but the evidence remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

Synthesise the evidence on the impact of nurse-led interventions on early cancer detection. The primary outcome was early cancer detection uptake rate. Secondary outcomes were cancer knowledge, early detection beliefs, diagnosed precancerous lesions and early-stage cancers.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trails.

DATA SOURCES

Eight English language databases (British Nursing Index, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, Ovid Emcare, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection) and three Chinese language databases (Chinese Biomedical Literature Databases, China Journal Net, and Wanfang Data) were searched from inception date to September 2019. Grey literature and reference lists of included studies were also examined.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2.0) tool. Meta-analyses and descriptive analyses were used. Subgroup analyses were conducted for study settings and intervention types.

RESULTS

Ten studies examined the effects of nurse-led interventions, including education, patient reminders, counselling, and patient navigation, on early detection of breast or cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer. Nurse-led interventions improved the uptake rates of mammography [risk ratio (RR) = 1.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-3.33; p = 0.01], clinical breast examination (RR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.02-4.59; p = 0.05), regular breast self-examination (RR = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.54-2.63; p < 0.001), and colonoscopy (RR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.57-2.30; p < 0.001), but not of faecal blood occult tests. Subgroup analyses showed significantly improved mammography and clinical breast examination uptake rates for interventions conducted at health centres, and that patient navigation had better effects on improving colonoscopy uptake rates than did counselling. The intervention also improved cancer knowledge, early detection beliefs, and cases of detected precancerous lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurse-led interventions may improve early cancer detection uptake rates, cancer knowledge, early detection beliefs, and cases of detected precancerous lesions. The effects of nurse-led interventions conducted in home settings on improving mammography and clinical breast examination uptake rates may need further exploration. Patient navigation may be superior to counselling in improving colonoscopy uptake rates. Social media may be an option for delivering early cancer detection guidance, but needs to be further explored. Tweetable abstract: Nurse-led interventions have potential effects on promoting early detection of cancer.

Interventions to Reduce Healthcare Disparities in Cancer Screening Among Minority Adults: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Racial minority populations face an increased burden relative to cancer interventions. Compared with Caucasians, the cancer screening rate is substantially lower among African American, Asian American, Latinx American, and American Indian/Alaska Native populations. Barriers such as low health literacy, lack of health insurance, and miscommunication between patients and providers have been identified as important factors that result in low screening rates among minority adults. This study was designed to identify interventions targeting racial minority adults 40 years of age or older that were effective in increasing cancer screening uptake rates.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles published in and after January 2009 was conducted using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Twenty-six published studies of cancer screening intervention tested with minority adults were identified through the searches of CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus databases.

RESULTS

Thirteen (50%) of the studies utilized lay community health workers to increase cancer awareness and knowledge and to encourage screening. These methods took place over the telephone, at community education sessions, or within the context of personalized patient navigation support. The intervention programs utilized culturally relevant materials as well as spoken and written information in the targeted population's native language. Various intervention designs resulted in statistically significant increases in cancer screening adherence. However, we found no intervention that consistently elevated cancer screening rates across all racial/ethnic minority adults.

CONCLUSIONS

The finding suggests that highly segmented interventions are needed in order to improve cancer screening among various racial/ethnic minority adults.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATION

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

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

Predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal Cancer screening adherence

This study investigated predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Stool blood test (SBT) and/or colonoscopy screening were offered to primary care patients in two randomized controlled trials which assessed the impact of behavioral interventions on screening. Data were obtained through surveys and electronic medical records. Among 1942 participants, 646 (33%) screened. Exposure to interventions was associated with higher overall CRCS by twofold to threefold; older age, African American race, being married, and having a higher screening decision stage were also associated with higher overall CRCS (odds ratios = 1.30, 1.31, 1.34, and 5.59, respectively). Intervention, older age, female gender, and being married were associated with higher SBT adherence, while preference for colonoscopy was associated with lower SBT adherence. Intervention and higher decision stage were associated with higher colonoscopy adherence, while preference for SBT was associated with lower colonoscopy adherence. Among older individuals, African Americans had higher overall CRCS than whites, but this was not true among younger individuals (interaction p = .041). The higher screening adherence of African Americans over whites was due to stronger screening with a non-preferred test, i.e., higher SBT adherence only among individuals who preferred colonoscopy and higher colonoscopy adherence only among individuals who preferred SBT. Intervention exposure, sociodemographic background, and screening decision stage predicted overall CRCS adherence. Gender and test preference also affected test-specific screening adherence. Interactions involving race and test preference suggest that it is important to provide both colonoscopy and SBT screening options to patients, particularly African Americans.

Structured Data Acquisition in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Demographic changes and improvement in therapy have shifted the focus of treatment towards chronic diseases and multiple health conditions. This has caused a tremendous increase in data per patient that needs to be integrated longitudinally and across departmental silos. The general increase in the volume of data per diagnostic examination and the number of diagnostic procedures per diagnostic pathway additionally accentuate this data integration challenge.

SUMMARY

Subspecialization in medicine has led to largely autonomously organized departments with in-dependent IT ecosystems. This patchwork of IT infrastructure is not prepared to meet the data integration challenge. The resulting lack of integrated information makes the treatment of chronically ill patients increasingly difficult and error prone. Key Message: A sustainable method for data ac-quisition is needed to aid multimodal treatment and improve efficiency in healthcare.

Barriers and Facilitators of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among a Hispanic Community in Michigan

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause in the USA for cancer-related deaths. Hispanics demonstrate the lowest CRC screening (CRCS) rate and research suggests that causes of screening disparities differ among ethnic groups and geographic locations. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of CRCS and to identify barriers and facilitators to screening in the Hispanic population of Flint, Michigan METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Consenting participants completed a previously validated survey in their language of preference. Variables obtained included sociodemographic information, insurance status, language preference, primary care physician (PCP), language spoken by PCP, recommendation of CRCS, acculturation, and fatalism. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to determine the association between predictors associated with previous CRCS.

RESULTS

Seventy subjects completed the survey. Overall previous CRCS rate was 60%. Multivariate results indicated that having a physician that speaks both English and Spanish significantly increases the likelihood of CRCS. It also indicated that those who have been living in the USA for equal or less than 30 years and those that physician had never recommended screening were less likely to have been screened.

DISCUSSION

Our study provides important preliminary data that may help improve CRCS among this Hispanic population. Interventions include providing a list of bilingual physicians in the community and to educate them regarding CRCS to mitigate the lack of physician recommendations. Notably, this study highlights the importance of cultural sensitivity and competence in preventive healthcare to promote inclusiveness of minority populations.