Joint breast and colorectal cancer screenings in medically underserved women

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Women in the Rural US: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Women living in rural areas have lower rates of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening compared with women living in urban settings.

Objective

To assess the comparative effectiveness of (1) a mailed, tailored digital video disc (DVD) intervention; (2) a DVD intervention plus telephonic patient navigation (DVD/PN); and (3) usual care with simultaneously increased adherence to any breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening that was not up to date at baseline and to assess cost-effectiveness.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This randomized clinical trial recruited and followed up women from rural Indiana and Ohio (community based) who were not up to date on any or all recommended cancer screenings. Participants were randomly assigned between November 28, 2016, and July 1, 2019, to 1 of 3 study groups (DVD, DVD/PN, or usual care). Statistical analyses were completed between August and December 2021 and between March and September 2022.

Intervention

The DVD interactively assessed and provided messages for health beliefs, including risk of developing the targeted cancers and barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy for obtaining the needed screenings. Patient navigators counseled women on barriers to obtaining screenings. The intervention simultaneously supported obtaining screening for all or any tests outside of guidelines at baseline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of any or all needed cancer screenings from baseline through 12 months, including breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the randomized groups on being up to date for all and any screenings at 12 months.

Results

The sample included 963 women aged 50 to 74 years (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [6.3] years). The DVD group had nearly twice the odds of those in the usual care group of obtaining all needed screenings (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.43; P = .048), and the odds were nearly 6 times greater for DVD/PN vs usual care (OR, 5.69; 95% CI, 3.24-10.5; P < .001). The DVD/PN intervention (but not DVD alone) was significantly more effective than usual care (OR, 4.01; 95% CI, 2.60-6.28; P < .001) for promoting at least 1 (ie, any) of the needed screenings at 12 months. Cost-effectiveness per woman who was up to date was $14 462 in the DVD group and $10 638 in the DVD/PN group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial of rural women who were not up to date with at least 1 of the recommended cancer screenings (breast, cervical, or colorectal), an intervention designed to simultaneously increase adherence to any or all of the 3 cancer screening tests was more effective than usual care, available at relatively modest costs, and able to be remotely delivered, demonstrating great potential for implementing an evidence-based intervention in remote areas of the midwestern US.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02795104.

An RCT to Increase Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening

INTRODUCTION

Adherence to breast and colorectal cancer screenings reduce mortality from these cancers, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. This 2 × 2 RCT compared 3 theory-based interventions to usual care to simultaneously increase breast and colon cancer screening in women who were nonadherent to both screenings at study entry.

DESIGN

RCT.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Women (n=692) who were nonadherent to both breast and colon cancer screenings and aged 51-75 years were recruited. Enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection were completed between 2013 and 2017, and data analyzed in 2018.

INTERVENTION

The randomized intervention included the following 4 groups: 3 intervention arms (personally tailored messages using a web-based intervention, phone delivery by a trained navigator, or both) compared with usual care. Women at an average risk for colon cancer were allowed to select either colonoscopy or stool test as their preferred colon cancer screening. Mammography was promoted for breast cancer screening.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome data at 6 months included self-report and medical records for screening activity.

RESULTS

All intervention arms significantly increased receipt of either a mammogram or stool test compared with control (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0001, web + phone: p<0.0001). When considering receipt of both mammogram and stool test, all intervention arms were significantly different from usual care (web: p<0.0249, phone: p<0.0003, web + phone: p<0.0001). In addition, women who were adherent to mammography had a 4.5 times greater odds of becoming adherent to colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

The tailored intervention simultaneously supporting both breast and colon cancer screenings significantly improved rates of obtaining one of the screenings and increased receipt of both tests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with the clinical trials identifier NCT03279198 at www.clinicaltrials.gov.

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

CONTEXT

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

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

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

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Primary care colorectal cancer screening correlates with breast cancer screening: implications for colorectal cancer screening improvement interventions

Objective

National colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have plateaued. To optimize interventions targeting those unscreened, a better understanding is needed of how this preventive service fits in with multiple preventive and chronic care needs managed by primary care providers (PCPs). This study examines whether PCP practices of other preventive and chronic care needs correlate with CRC screening.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 90 PCPs and 33,137 CRC screening-eligible patients. Five PCP quality metrics (breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, HgbA1c and LDL testing, and blood pressure control) were measured. A baseline correlation test was performed between these metrics and PCP CRC screening rates. Multivariable logistic regression with clustering at the clinic-level estimated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for these PCP quality metrics, patient and PCP characteristics, and their relationship to CRC screening.

Results

PCP CRC screening rates have a strong correlation with breast cancer screening rates (r = 0.7414, p < 0.001) and a weak correlation with the other quality metrics. In the final adjusted model, the only PCP quality metric that significantly predicted CRC screening was breast cancer screening (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.11–1.42; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

PCP CRC screening rates are highly concordant with breast cancer screening. CRC screening is weakly concordant with cervical cancer screening and chronic disease management metrics. Efforts targeting PCPs to increase CRC screening rates could be bundled with breast cancer screening improvement interventions to increase their impact and success.

A Mixed Methods Review of Education and Patient Navigation Interventions to Increase Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening for Rural Women

Reviews have assessed studies of breast and cervical cancer screening access and utilization for rural women, but none analyze interventions to increase screening rates. A mixed methods literature search identified studies of breast and/or cervical cancer prevention education and patient navigation interventions for rural women. Rural areas need greater implementation and evaluation of screening interventions as these services address the challenges of delivering patient-centered cancer care to un-/underserved communities. The lack of intervention studies on breast and cervical cancer education and patient navigation programs compared to urban studies highlights the need for validation of these programs among diverse, rural populations.