Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Colorectal Cancer Screening and Management in Low- and Middle-Income Countries and High-Income Countries: A Narrative Review

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading global health challenge, being a highly prevalent cancer and a major cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The incidence of CRC varies significantly between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with higher rates of incidence but lower mortality in HICs. Factors such as genetic predisposition, lifestyle, and dietary habits play significant roles in CRC development, with the Western diet and limited access to screening contributing to increased incidence. This review highlights disparities in CRC screening, management, and outcomes between HICs and LMICs, with HICs benefiting from advanced screening methods like colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy, while LMICs face challenges due to limited healthcare infrastructure and resources. Tailored strategies, including low-cost screening options and community-based initiatives, are critical in LMICs to improve early detection and outcomes. Future directions for improving CRC care globally include telemedicine, artificial intelligence, and mobile health technologies to bridge access gaps, as well as personalized medicine to enhance treatment efficacy. Global collaboration and investment in healthcare infrastructure are necessary to reduce CRC-related mortality, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Effects of a Patient Portal Intervention to Address Diabetes Care Gaps: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the potential to significantly reduce complications, many patients do not consistently receive diabetes preventive care. Our research team recently applied user-centered design sprint methodology to develop a patient portal intervention empowering patients to address selected diabetes care gaps (eg, no diabetes eye examination in last 12 months).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effect of our novel diabetes care gap intervention on completion of selected evidence-based diabetes preventive care services and secondary outcomes.

METHODS

We are conducting a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of the effect of the intervention on diabetes care gaps. Adult patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are recruited from primary care clinics affiliated with Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Participants are eligible if they have type 1 or 2 DM, can read in English, are aged 18-75 years, have a current patient portal account, and have reliable access to a mobile device with internet access. We exclude patients with medical conditions that prevent them from using a mobile device, severe difficulty seeing, pregnant women or women who plan to become pregnant during the study period, and patients on dialysis. Participants will be randomly assigned to the intervention or usual care. The primary outcome measure will be the number of diabetes care gaps among 4 DM preventive care services (diabetes eye examination, pneumococcal vaccination, hemoglobin A1c, and urine microalbumin) at 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes will include diabetes self-efficacy, confidence managing diabetes in general, understanding of diabetes preventive care, diabetes distress, patient portal satisfaction, and patient-initiated orders at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after randomization. An ordinal logistic regression model will be used to quantify the effect of the intervention on the number of diabetes care gaps at the 12-month follow-up. For dichotomous secondary outcomes, a logistic regression model will be used with random effects for the clinic and provider variables as needed. For continuous secondary outcomes, a regression model will be used.

RESULTS

This study is ongoing. Recruitment was closed in February 2022; a total of 433 patients were randomized. Of those randomized, most (n=288, 66.5%) were non-Hispanic White, 33.5% (n=145) were racial or ethnic minorities, 33.9% (n=147) were aged 65 years or older, and 30.7% (n=133) indicated limited health literacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The study directly tests the hypothesis that a patient portal intervention-alerting patients about selected diabetes care gaps, fostering understanding of their significance, and allowing patients to initiate care-will reduce diabetes care gaps compared with usual care. The insights gained from this study may have broad implications for developing future interventions to address various care gaps, such as gaps in cancer screening, and contribute to the development of effective, scalable, and sustainable approaches to engage patients in chronic disease management and prevention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04894903; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894903.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/56123.

Pilot intervention to increase uptake of lung cancer screening through the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of referring patients for lung cancer screening (LCS) from the emergency department (ED) as a method to increase the uptake of LCS.

METHODS

This is a single-arm pilot study at a large safety-net ED. ED LCS-eligible patients were offered a referral to our LCS clinic upon ED discharge. The primary outcome was the frequency at which patients connected with the LCS clinic.

RESULTS

During the study period, 105 patients were approached; 26 (24.8%) participated. Reasons for non-enrollment include 29 (27.6%) who were not interested in research, 10 (9.5%) who did not speak English, and 40 (38.1%) who did not meet the pack-years criteria. Seventeen patients (65.4%, 17/26) connected with the LCS clinic, with 10 (38.5%) having been seen in the clinic and received a low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scan. Of the 17 that were connected with the clinic, 7 (26.9%) had a non-LDCT chest CT scan in the past year. Of those that were not seen in the clinic (n = 9), 4 (44.4%) were unreachable via 3 phone calls and a post-marked letter, and 3 (33.3%) did not attend the scheduled appointment, and 2 (22.2%) were delayed due to COVID-19. Of those that had CT scans over the study period (n = 17), 0 scans were normal, one patient (5.9%) had asymptomatic lung cancer, 7 (41.2%) had pulmonary nodules, 11 (64.7%) had emphysema, and 9 (52.9%) had coronary artery disease.

CONCLUSION

This pilot study suggests the feasibility and suggests initial indications of the efficacy of referring ED patients for LCS.

Limited English proficiency and reported receipt of colorectal cancer screening among adults 45-75 in 2019 and 2021

Introduction

Substantial barriers to screening exist for medically underserved populations, especially adults with limited English proficiency (LEP). We examined the proportion of US adults aged 45-75 up-to-date with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by LEP after 2018. The American Cancer Society began recommending CRC screening for adults 45-49 in 2018.

Methods

We analyzed cross-sectional data of adults 45-75 years old participating in the 2019 or 2021 National Health Interview Survey (N = 25,611). Adults were considered up-to-date with screening if they reported any stool test within 1 year, stool-DNA testing within 3 years, or colonoscopy within 10 years. Adults who interviewed in a language other than English were considered to have LEP. Adults not up-to-date with screening were asked if a healthcare professional (HCP) recommended screening, and if so which test(s). Regression models conducted in 2022-2023 evaluated receipt of screening, adjusting for sociodemographics, year, and healthcare access.

Results

Overall, 54.0 % (95 % CI 53.1-54.9 %) of participants were up-to-date with screening (9.4 % aged 45-49 vs 75.5 % aged 65-75); prevalence increased from 2019 (52.9 %) to 2021(55.2 %). Adults with LEP (vs English proficiency) were less likely to be up-to-date with screening (31.6 % vs. 56.8 %, [aPR 0.86 (0.77-0.96)]). Among adults not up-to-date, 15.0 % reported their HCP recommended screening (8.4 % among adults with LEP).

Conclusions

Nearly half of US adults were not up-to-date with CRC screening in 2019 and 2021 and few reported being recommended screening. Adults with LEP and those 45-49 were least likely to be screened suggesting targeted interventions are needed for these populations.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees

BACKGROUND

A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure.

RESULTS

Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups.

CONCLUSION

Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger's test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It's noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

Interventions to improve oncofertility knowledge and decision-making in patients with low health literacy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of interventions that improve knowledge, health and decision-related outcomes in cancer, fertility or the intersection of both among low health literacy (LHL) patients.

METHODS

Articles published from 2000 to March 2022 in English were identified through searching MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Embase databases on 29/03/2022. Studies were independently screened against eligibility criteria and appraised for quality. A narrative synthesis of data was presented.

RESULTS

Of 235 citations, 11 studies (2585 participants) investigating three categories were included: decision-support tools (n = 8), mobile health applications (n = 2) and communication tools (n = 1). No eligible study was identified for fertility or oncofertility. All interventions integrated multimedia or interactivity to supplement plain-language text. Decision aids and mobile health applications improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and increased clarity around cancer-related choices. Overall, findings favoured the use of online interventions tailored for LHL patients.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of data on LHL interventions in fertility and oncofertility. In cancer, LHL interventions improved knowledge and decision-making outcomes. The ideal intervention remains inconclusive.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Lack of engagement with LHL needs in oncofertility and fertility settings have implications for informed treatment decision-making. In cancer, further research is required to ascertain most effective intervention format.

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.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Interactive or tailored digital interventions to increase uptake in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce health inequity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Significant health inequities exist in screening uptake for certain types of cancer. The review question was to identify and describe interactive, tailored digital, computer, and web-based interventions to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates versus usual care.

METHODS

We searched four medical literature databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 12 January 2023 that evaluated interventions aimed at increasing the percentage of breast, prostate, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

After screening 4200 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. Studies focused on colorectal ( n  = 10), breast ( n  = 4), cervical ( n  = 2), and prostate ( n  = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except two. Most studies focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Intervention types were heterogeneous and used computer programs, apps, or web-based methods to provide tailored or interactive information to participants about screening risks and options. Some studies found positive effects for increasing cancer screening uptake in the intervention groups compared to usual care, but results were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of cancer screening educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA. Designing effective digital intervention strategies, with components that can be adapted to remote delivery may be an important strategy for reducing health inequities in cancer screening during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Effectiveness and implementation of mPATH™-CRC: a mobile health system for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is widely recommended but underused, even though CRC is the third most diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the USA. The mPATH™ program is an iPad-based application designed to identify patients due for CRC screening, educate them on the commonly used screening tests, and help them select their best option, with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates.

METHODS

The mPATH™ program consists of questions asked of all adult patients at check-in (mPATH™-CheckIn), as well as a module specific for patients due for CRC screening (mPATH™-CRC). In this study, the mPATH™ program is evaluated through a Type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Specifically, the study consists of three parts: (1) a cluster-randomized controlled trial of primary care clinics comparing a "high touch" evidence-based implementation strategy with a "low touch" implementation strategy; (2) a nested pragmatic study evaluating the effectiveness of mPATH-CRC™ on completion of CRC screening; and (3) a mixed-methods study evaluating factors that facilitate or impede the maintenance of interventions like mPATH-CRC™. The primary objective is to compare the proportion of patients aged 50-74 who are eligible for CRC screening who complete mPATH™-CRC in the 6th month following implementation between the "high touch" and "low touch" implementation strategies. Effectiveness of mPATH™-CRC is evaluated by comparing the proportion who complete CRC screening within 16 weeks of their visit to the clinic between a pre-implementation cohort (8 months before implementation) and a post-implementation cohort (8 months after implementation).

DISCUSSION

This study will provide data on both the implementation of the mPATH™ program and its effectiveness in improving screening rates for CRC. In addition, this work has the potential to have an even broader impact by identifying strategies to support the sustained use of other similar technology-based primary care interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03843957. Registered on 18 February 2019.

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations

BACKGROUND

Health inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective.

METHODS

We prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented.

RESULTS

Several themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

Patient Perspectives on a Targeted Text Messaging Campaign to Encourage Screening for Diabetes: Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

A sizeable proportion of prediabetes and diabetes cases among adults in the United States remain undiagnosed. Patient-facing clinical decision support (CDS) tools that leverage electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to increase diabetes screening. Given the widespread mobile phone ownership across diverse groups, text messages present a viable mode for delivering alerts directly to patients. The use of unsolicited text messages to offer hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) screening has not yet been studied. It is imperative to gauge perceptions of "cold texts" to ensure that information and language are optimized to promote engagement with text messages that affect follow-through with health behaviors.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to gauge the perceptions of and receptiveness to text messages to inform content that would facilitate engagement with text messages intended to initiate a mobile health (mHealth) intervention for targeted screening. Messages were designed to invite those not already diagnosed with diabetes to make a decision to take part in HbA1c screening and walk them through the steps required to perform the behavior based solely on an automated text exchange.

METHODS

In total, 6 focus groups were conducted at Wake Forest Baptist Health (WFBH) between September 2019 and February 2020. The participants were adult patients without diabetes who had completed an in-person visit at the Family and Community Medicine Clinic within the previous year. We displayed a series of text messages and asked the participants to react to the message content and suggest improvements. Content was deductively coded with respect to the Health Belief Model (HBM) and inductively coded to identify other emergent themes that could potentially impact engagement with text messages.

RESULTS

Participants (N=36) were generally receptive to the idea of receiving a text-based alert for HbA1c screening. Plain language, personalization, and content, which highlighted perceived benefits over perceived susceptibility and perceived severity, were important to participants' understanding of and receptiveness to messages. The patient-physician relationship emerged as a recurring theme in which patients either had a desire or held an assumption that their provider would be working behind the scenes throughout each step of the process. Participants needed further clarification to understand the steps involved in following through with HbA1c screening and receiving results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that patients may be receptive to text messages that alert them to a risk of having an elevated HbA1c in direct-to-patient alerts that use cold texting. Using plain and positive language, integrating elements of personalization, and defining new processes clearly were identified by participants as modifiable content elements that could act as facilitators that would help overcome barriers to engagement with these messages. A patient's relationship with their provider and the financial costs associated with texts and screening may affect receptiveness and engagement in this process.

Exploring the consequences of food insecurity and harnessing the power of peer navigation and mHealth to reduce food insecurity and cardiometabolic comorbidities among persons with HIV: protocol for development and implementation trial of weCare/Secure

BACKGROUND

Food insecurity, or the lack of consistent access to nutritionally adequate and safe foods, effects up to 50% of people living with HIV (PWH) in the United States (US). PWH who are food insecure have lower antiretroviral adherence, are less likely to achieve viral suppression, and are at increased risk developing of serious illnesses, including cardiometabolic comorbidities. The objectives of this study are to better understand how food insecurity contributes to the development of cardiometabolic comorbidities among PWH and to test a novel bilingual peer navigation-mHealth intervention (weCare/Secure) designed to reduce these comorbidities in food-insecure PWH with prediabetes or Type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

In Aim 1, we will recruit a longitudinal cohort of 1800 adult (≥18 years) PWH from our clinic-based population to determine the difference in the prevalence and incidence of cardiometabolic comorbidities between food-secure and food-insecure PWH. Food insecurity screening, indicators of cardiometabolic comorbidities, and other characteristics documented in the electronic health record (EHR) will be collected annually for up to 3 years from this cohort. In Aim 2, we will conduct a randomized controlled trial among a sample of food-insecure PWH who have prediabetes or T2DM to compare changes in insulin sensitivity over 6 months between participants in weCare/Secure and participants receiving usual care. In Aim 3, we will conduct semi-structured individual in-depth interviews to explore the effect of the intervention among intervention participants with varying insulin sensitivity outcomes.

TRIAL STATUS

Aim 1 (longitudinal cohort) recruitment began in May 2022 and is ongoing. Aim 2 (intervention) recruitment is planned for spring 2023 and is expected to be completed in spring 2024. Aim 3 (process evaluation) data collection will occur after sufficient completion of the 6-month assessment in Aim 2. Final results are anticipated in fall 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

This research seeks to advance our understanding of how food insecurity impacts the development of cardiometabolic comorbidities among PWH and how food insecurity interventions may alleviate relevant comorbidities. Given the growing interest among health systems in addressing food insecurity, if the intervention is found to be efficacious, it could be broadly disseminated across HIV clinical care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04943861 . Registered on June 29, 2021.

How effective are digital technology-based interventions at promoting colorectal cancer screening uptake in average-risk populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Despite the global prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and efforts in screening advocacy, screening uptake remains relatively low. Considering the greater accessibility and popularity of telemedicine in behaviour change interventions, this meta-analysis seeks to examine the usefulness of digital interventions in promoting CRC screening uptake as compared to existing non-digital strategies. A systematic search on five databases identified articles published before September 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of digital interventions to usual care were included and assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Effectiveness of interventions was measured by CRC screening completion rates, and pooled effect sizes were computed for both digital intervention subtypes identified - decision-making aids and tailored educational interventions. 14 studies (17,075 participants) assessed to have low or some risk of bias were included in this meta-analysis. A random-effects model revealed that digital interventions were more likely to promote CRC screening uptake (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.56), and using a decision-making aid was almost 1.5 times more likely to result in screening completion (i.e., completed a colorectal investigation using stool-based or direct visualization test) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.24-1.63). Meanwhile, the tailored educational intervention subtype failed to achieve statistical significance in promoting screening uptake, bearing in mind the significant heterogeneity across studies (I² = 88.6%). Digital decision-making aids significantly improved CRC screening uptake compared to tailored digital educational interventions and usual care. However, as all included studies were conducted in Western settings, its role in augmenting existing CRC screening promotion strategies especially among Asians should be further evaluated.

Association Between Cancer Prevalence and Different Socioeconomic Strata in the US: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999–2018

Background

Inequality in health outcomes in relation to Americans' socioeconomic status (SES) is rising. American Cancer Society depicts that the most common cancers are diagnosed in men and women in 2021. We aim to study socioeconomic inequalities in related cancers to investigate whether the cancer prevalence differs within the family income to poverty ratio (PIR).

Methods

The study investigated data from adults aged 20–85 years participated in the 1999–2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) who had complete data available on PIR and cancer or malignancy information (n = 49,720). Participants were stratified into 3 categories of PIR: high income (PIR ≥ 4), middle income (>1 and <4), or at or below the federal poverty level (≤1).

Results

The prevalence of prostate cancer was higher in the middle-income (3.61% [n = 464]) and high-income groups (3.36% [n = 227]) than in the low-income group (1.83% [n = 84], all p < 0.001). The prevalence of breast cancer was higher in middle-income (2.86% [n = 390]) and high-income participants (3.48% [n = 218]) than in low-income participants (2.00% [n = 117], all p < 0.001). Compared with the low-income group in men (0.48% [n = 22]), a higher prevalence of colon and rectum cancer occurs in the middle-income (0.87% [n = 112], p = 0.012) and high-income groups (0.89% [n = 58], p = 0.018). The prevalence of lung cancer in women was lower in high-income participants than middle-income participants (0.10% [n = 6] vs. 0.29% [n = 39], p = 0.014).

Conclusions

Increasing disparities in cancer prevalence were identified across all socioeconomic categories analyzed in this study. To ensure the sustainable development goals, it is a global health priority to understand inequalities in health and to target interventions accordingly.

Digital Health Literacy: Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Digital health is growing at a rapid pace, and digital health literacy has attracted increasing attention from the academic community.

Objective

The purposes of this study are to conduct a systematic bibliometric analysis on the field of digital health literacy and to understand the research context and trends in this field.

Methods

Methods: A total of 1955 scientific publications were collected from the Web of Science core collection. Institutional co-operation, journal co-citation, theme bursting, keyword co-occurrence, author co-operation, author co-citation, literature co-citation, and references in the field of digital health literacy were analyzed using the VOSviewer and CiteSpace knowledge mapping tools.

Results

The results demonstrate that the United States has the highest number of publications and citations in this field. The University of California System was first in terms of institutional contributions. The Journal of Medical Internet Research led in the number of publications, citations, and co-citations. Research areas of highly cited articles in the field of digital health literacy mainly include the definition and scale of health literacy, health literacy and health outcomes, health literacy and the digital divide, and the influencing factors of health literacy.

Conclusions

We summarized research progress in the field of digital health literacy and reveal the context, trends, and trending topics of digital health literacy research through statistical analysis and network visualization. We found that digital health literacy has a significant potential to improve health outcomes, bridge the digital divide, and reduce health inequalities. Our work can serve as a fundamental reference and directional guide for future research in this field.

Increasing Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates by Implementing Effective “Reminder to Complete Kit” Communication With Participants: A Quality Improvement Study

Background

The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States is increasing. It remains the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States for men and women combined, mainly due to underutilization of screening methods. The American Cancer Society now recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. The primary objective of this quality improvement project was to determine if reminder methods, such as telephone or letter reminders, increased the return rate of fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) for CRC screening.

Methodology

At public outreach events and daily clinics in the West Texas Panhandle area, participants in the GET FIT program were provided with FIT kits after completing the education on CRC. Participants who fit the inclusion criteria and had received a FIT kit from the program were included. They were instructed on how to perform the test and mail it back. Participants who did not return the completed kits within two weeks were reminded either through (1) a reminder letter, (2) telephone, or (3) a combination of letter reminder and telephone call every two weeks (±three days) for 60 days or five attempts to contact. We de-identified and analyzed the FIT kit return data from April-September 2019 before analyzing these reminder methods. We then calculated the change in return rates from October 2019 to March 2020. Our goal was to increase the FIT return rates by 25% compared to the baseline return rate.

Results

The pre-intervention return rate of kits for April-September 2019 was 61.52%, and the post-intervention return rate for October 2019-March 2020 was 71.85%. This rate was equal to an approximately 16.79% increase in return rates that was statistically significant (p < 0.01). There was a significant difference in the method of reminder between the two groups, but no significant differences in gender and race/ethnicity between the two groups. There was a significant difference in return rates between race/ethnicities in the October-March cohort with black and Hispanic participants having the highest return rates of 82.3% and 77.25%, respectively.

Conclusions

FIT remains one of the primary options for CRC screening. Due to its lower cost and noninvasiveness, FIT was offered to patients at average risk. We demonstrated an increase in return rates, although we did not meet our target return rate goal for this project. This study was limited due to a gradual increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and a subsequent shift and conversation of ongoing research into COVID-19.

Making decisions on your own: Self-administered decision aids about colorectal cancer screening - A systematic review and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To provide a systematic review of self-administered decision aids (DAs) for citizens invited to participate in colorectal cancer screening synthesizing the effectiveness of self-administered DAs on informed choice or the components hereof; knowledge, attitudes, and participation.

METHODS

The literature search was undertaken in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase and Scopus and last updated 19 March 2021. Results were presented by narrative synthesis, meta-analyses and vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies of fair methodological quality were included. One study reported on informed choice and 13 studies reported on the components. Self-administered DAs increased participation and knowledge whereas it was inconclusive with regard to attitudes towards screening. The studies were very heterogeneous with different comparators, outcomes and means of measurement.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed a potential for self-administered DAs to support informed choice in colorectal cancer screening, especially by increasing knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It seems reasonable to consider informed choice to be one of the main outcomes of self-administered DAs. Yet there is a need for consensus on how to measure informed choice in cancer screening, especially a validated measurement of knowledge defining what constitutes 'adequate knowledge'.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Digital Informed Decision Making Tool in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Informed decision aids provide information in the context of the patient's values and improve informed decision making (IDM). To overcome barriers that interfere with IDM, our team developed an innovative iPad-based application (aka "app") to help patients make informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening. The app assesses patients' eligibility for screening, educates them about their options, and empowers them to request a test via the interactive decision aid.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to explore how informed decision aids can be implemented successfully in primary care clinics, including the facilitators and barriers to implementation; strategies for minimizing barriers; adequacy of draft training materials; and any additional support or training desired by clinics.

DESIGN

This work deals with a multicenter qualitative study in rural and urban settings.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 48 individuals participated including primary care practice managers, clinicians, nurses, and front desk staff.

APPROACH

Focus groups and semi-structured interviews, with data analysis were guided by thematic analysis.

KEY RESULTS

Salient emergent themes were time, workflow, patient age, literacy, and electronic health record (EHR) integration. Saving time was important to most participants. Patient flow was a concern for all clinic staff, and they expressed that any slowdown due to patients using the iPad module or perceived additional work to clinic staff would make staff less motivated to use the program. Participants voiced concern about older patients being unwilling or unable to utilize the iPad and patients with low literacy ability being able to read or comprehend the information.

CONCLUSION

Integrating new IDM apps into the current clinic workflow with minimal disruptions would increase the probability of long-term adoption and ultimate sustainability.

NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

R01CA218416-A1.

Creating learning health systems and the emerging role of biomedical informatics

INTRODUCTION

The nature of information used in medicine has changed. In the past, we were limited to routine clinical data and published clinical trials. Today, we deal with massive, multiple data streams and easy access to new tests, ideas, and capabilities to process them. Whereas in the past getting information for decision-making was a challenge, now, it is how to analyze, evaluate and prioritize all that is readily available through the multitude of data-collecting devices. Clinicians must become adept with the tools needed to deal with the era of big data, requiring a major change in how we learn to make decisions. Major change is often met with resistance and questions about value. A Learning Health System is an enabler to encourage the development of such tools and demonstrate value in improved decision-making.

METHODS

We describe how we are developing a Biomedical Informatics program to help our medical institution's evolution as an academic Learning Health System, including strategy, training for house staff and examples of the role of informatics from operations to research.

RESULTS

We described an array of learning health system implementations and educational programs to improve healthcare and prepare a cadre of physicians with basic information technology skills. The programs have been well accepted with, for example, increasing interest and enrollment in the educational programs.

CONCLUSIONS

We are now in an era when large volumes of a wide variety of data are readily available. The challenge is not so much in the acquisition of data, but in assessing the quality, relevance and value of the data. The data we can get may not be the data we need. In the past, sources of data were limited, and trial results published in journals were the major source of evidence for decision making. The advent of powerful analytics systems has changed the concept of evidence. Clinicians will have to develop the skills necessary to work in the era of big data. It is not reasonable to expect that all clinicians will also be data scientists. However, understanding the role of AI and predictive analytics, and how to apply them, will become progressively more important. Programs such as the one being implemented at Wake Forest fill that need.

The impact of cumulative colorectal cancer screening delays: A simulation study

OBJECTIVE

Annual fecal immunochemical tests can reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. However, screening is a multi-step process and most patients do not perfectly adhere to guideline-recommended screening schedules. Our objective was to compare the reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and life-years gained based on US guideline-concordant fecal immunochemical test screening to scenarios with a range of delays.

METHOD

The Colorectal Cancer Simulated Population model for Incidence and Natural history (CRC-SPIN) microsimulation model was used to estimate the effect of systematic departures from fecal immunochemical test screening guidelines on lifetime screening benefit.

RESULTS

The combined effect of consistent modest delays in screening initiation (1 year), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (3 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (3 months) resulted in up to 1.3 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 0.4 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 154.7 fewer life-years gained per 10,000. A 5-year delay in screening initiation had a larger impact on screening effectiveness than consistent small delays in repeated fecal immunochemical test screening or receipt of follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test. The combined effect of consistent large delays in screening initiation (5 years), repeated fecal immunochemical test screening (6 months), and receipt of follow-up or surveillance colonoscopy (6 months) resulted in up to 3.7 additional colorectal cancer cases per 10,000, 1.5 additional late-stage colorectal cancer cases per 10,000 and 612.3 fewer life-years gained per 10,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic delays across the screening process can result in meaningful reductions in colorectal cancer screening effectiveness, especially for longer delays. Screening delays could drive differences in colorectal cancer incidence across patient groups with differential access to screening.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Decision Aids for Socially Disadvantaged Populations: Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS)

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and other shared decision-making (SDM) interventions for socially disadvantaged populations has not been well studied.

PURPOSE

To assess whether PtDAs and other SDM interventions improve outcomes or decrease health inequalities among socially disadvantaged populations and determine the critical features of successful interventions.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to October 2019. Cochrane systematic reviews on PtDAs.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of PtDAs and SDM interventions that included socially disadvantaged populations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent double data extraction using a standardized form and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five PtDA and 13 other SDM intervention trials met our inclusion criteria. Compared with usual care, PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference = 13.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.01, 18.82 [I2 = 96%]) and patient-clinician communication (relative risk = 1.62, 95% CI 1.42, 1.84 [I2 = 0%]). PtDAs reduced decisional conflict (mean difference = -9.59; 95% CI -18.94, -0.24 [I2 = 84%]) and the proportion undecided (relative risk = 0.39; 95% CI 0.28, 0.53 [I2 = 75%]). PtDAs did not affect anxiety (standardized mean difference = 0.02, 95% CI -0.22, 0.26 [I2 = 70%]). Only 1 trial looked at clinical outcomes (hemoglobin A1C). Five of the 12 PtDA studies that compared outcomes by disadvantaged standing found that outcomes improved more for socially disadvantaged participants. No evidence indicated which intervention characteristics were most effective. Results were similar for SDM intervention trials.

LIMITATIONS

Sixteen PtDA studies had an overall unclear risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most outcomes. Most studies only had short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

PtDAs led to better outcomes among socially disadvantaged populations but did not reduce health inequalities. We could not determine which intervention features were most effective.[Box: see text].

Defining the Resident Continuity Clinic Panel Along Patient Outcomes: a Health Equity Opportunity

BACKGROUND

Continuity clinics are a critical component of outpatient internal medicine training. Little is known about the population of patients cared for by residents and how these physicians perform.

OBJECTIVES

To compare resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures. To identify potential associations with differences in performance, specifically medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Large academic primary care clinic caring for 40,000 patients. One hundred ten internal medicine residents provide primary care for 9,000 of these patients; the remainder are cared for by faculty.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive analysis using review of the medical record and hospital administrative data.

MAIN MEASURES

We compared resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures, including cancer screening rates, chronic disease care, acute and chronic medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. We evaluated the success of resident transition by measuring rates of kept continuity visits 18 months after graduation.

KEY RESULTS

Performance on all clinical outcomes was significantly better for faculty compared to residents. Despite similar levels of medical complexity compared to faculty patients, resident patients had significantly higher levels of psychosocial vulnerability across all measured domains, including health literacy, economic vulnerability, psychiatric illness burden, high-risk behaviors, and patient engagement. Resident patients experienced higher rates of patient loss than faculty patients (38.5 vs. 18.8%) with only 46.5% of resident patients with a kept continuity appointment in the practice 18 months after graduation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large academic practice, resident performance on standard population health measures was significantly lower than faculty. This may be explained in part by the burden of psychosocial vulnerability of their patients and systems that do not effectively transition patients after graduation. These findings present an opportunity to improve structural equity for these vulnerable patients and developing physicians.

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.

High Rate of Inappropriate Fecal Immunochemical Testing at a Large Veterans Affairs Health Care System

INTRODUCTION

Colonoscopies and fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are the preferred modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In addition to proper patient selection, appropriate fecal immunochemical testing requires that negative tests be repeated annually, positive tests lead to a diagnostic colonoscopy, and FIT not be performed within 5 years of a colonoscopy with adequate bowel preparation. We sought to study the frequency of inappropriate FITs at the Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Health Care System in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

A retrospective quality assurance study was undertaken of veterans undergoing FIT in a 3-year period (2015-2017). We calculated the rate of a negative initial FIT in 2015/2016 followed by a second FIT in 2016/2017 in a random selection of veterans (3% SE, 95% CI). Demographics were compared in an equal random number of veterans that did and did not have a follow-up FIT (5% SE, 95% CI of all negative FIT). We also calculated the rate of completing colonoscopy following a positive FIT in a random selection of veterans (3% SE, 95% CI). Finally, we investigated use of FIT following a colonoscopy for all veterans in the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 6,766 FITs were performed; 4,391 unique veterans had at least 1 negative FIT, and 709 unique veterans had a positive FIT. Of 1,742 veterans with at least 1 negative FIT, 870 were eligible for repeat testing during the study period, and only 543 (62.4%) underwent at least 2 FITs. There was no significant demographic difference in veterans that had only 1 or at least 2 FITs. Of 410 veterans with a positive FIT, 113 (27.5%) did not undergo a subsequent colonoscopy within 1 year due to patient refusal, or failure to schedule or keep a colonoscopy appointment. Of 832 veterans who had both a FIT and colonoscopy in the interval, 108 veterans underwent colonoscopy with a subsequent FIT (1.6% of total FITs performed). Of these, 95 (88%) were judged to be inappropriate. Thirteen instances of FIT following colonoscopy were appropriate based on patient preference to undergo fecal immunochemical testing for CRC screening modality after undergoing colonoscopy with an inadequate bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans underwent inappropriate testing due to failure to undergo serial FIT after a negative result (37.6%), failure to complete colonoscopy following a positive FIT (27.5%), and undergoing inappropriate FIT following a recent colonoscopy (88%). Efforts are still required to improve both patient and provider education and adherence to appropriate fecal immunochemical testing and CRC screening guidelines.

Addressing Health Literacy in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the importance of addressing health literacy in patient decision aid (PtDA) development.

PURPOSE

An updated review as part of IPDAS 2.0 examined the extent to which PtDAs are designed to meet the needs of people with low health literacy/socially-disadvantaged populations.

DATA SOURCES

Reference lists of Cochrane reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PtDAs (2014, 2017, and upcoming 2021 versions).

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs that assessed the impact of PtDAs on low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups (i.e., ≥50% participants from socially-disadvantaged groups and/or subgroup analysis in socially-disadvantaged group/s).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two researchers independently extracted data into a standardized form including PtDA development and evaluation details. We searched online repositories and emailed authors to access PtDAs to verify grade reading level, understandability, and actionability.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five of 213 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, illustrating that only 12% of studies addressed the needs of low health literacy or other socially-disadvantaged groups. Grade reading level was calculated in 8 of 25 studies (33%), which is recommended in previous IPDAS guidelines. We accessed and independently assessed 11 PtDAs. None were written at sixth-grade level or below. Ten PtDAs met the recommended threshold for understandability, but only 5 met the recommended threshold for actionability. We also conducted a post hoc subgroup meta-analysis and found that knowledge improvements after receiving a PtDA were greater in studies that reported using strategies to reduce cognitive demand in PtDA development compared with studies that did not (χ² = 14.11, P = 0.0002, I² = 92.9%).

LIMITATIONS

We were unable to access 13 of 24 PtDAs. Conclusions. Greater attention to health literacy and socially-disadvantaged populations is needed in the field of PtDAs to ensure equity in decision support.

A Patient Portal-Based Commitment Device to Improve Adherence with Screening for Colorectal Cancer: a Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Despite significant investment in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, 40% of US adults are not up-to-date. Commitment devices, which are psychologically tailored approaches to enforce health goals, may be an effective method to increase CRC screening.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of a commitment device (patient self-ordering fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits) to standard CRC screening outreach.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were > 49 years and < 75 years, had no history of CRC, and were eligible for CRC screening.

INTERVENTION

An electronic screening reminder with an embedded order button allowed participants to order FIT kits directly from a patient portal. Those who used the order button were promptly sent a kit; those who did not were later mailed kits.

MAIN MEASURES

Primary outcome was completion of FIT kits. Secondary outcomes included number of days to completion, completion of follow-up for positive results, and CRC diagnosis; we also examined prior use of FIT kit. We used inverse probability of treatment weights to control for pretreatment imbalances.

KEY RESULTS

The cohort comprised 176,231 participants: 53% female; median age was 59; 11% were Asian, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 7% black, 51% White, 3% other/mixed race. Approximately 10% (N = 16,918) used the button. Using inverse probability of treatment weights, we found that those who used the button had 3.8 times the odds of completing a kit compared to participants who did not (odds ratio, 3.77; 95% confidence interval, 3.57-3.98). Within the button group, 63% of those eligible completed a FIT kit in the year prior to the button compared to 87% in the year after the button became available (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The ability to self-order screening kits may act as a commitment device that increases CRC screening. Scalable tools leveraging existing patient portals such as this can complement existing CRC outreach strategies.

Variation in Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices According to Cardiovascular Disease Status and Race/Ethnicity

PURPOSE

To assess current estimates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD) status and whether this association varies by race/ethnicity.

METHODS

Cross-sectional analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 among US adults aged 50-75 years (n = 807,937). Participants' self-reported CRC screening practices were categorized as being up-to-date, not up-to-date, or never screened. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess whether self-reported prevalent CVD was associated with CRC screening practices after adjusting for several potentially confounding variables; additional analyses were stratified by race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

One-quarter of US adults had never been screened for CRC, while 67.0% reported being up-to-date with CRC screening. The proportion of Hispanics who had never been screened (35.3%) was higher than non-Hispanic Whites (23.5%) and Blacks (20.6%). Adults with CVD were less likely to never have been screened (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.88-0.95) or not to be up-to-date (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) on CRC screening than those without CVD.

CONCLUSION

The presence of CVD is associated with better adherence to CRC screening guidelines. Poor CRC screening utilization in Hispanics should be a priority for further investigation and intervention.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Personalized Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment vs Education to Promote Screening Uptake

INTRODUCTION

Risk stratification has been proposed as a strategy to improve participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but evidence is lacking. We performed a randomized controlled trial of risk stratification using the National Cancer Institute's Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (CCRAT) on screening intent and completion.

METHODS

A total of 230 primary care patients eligible for first-time CRC screening were randomized to risk assessment via CCRAT or education control. Follow-up of screening intent and completion was performed by record review and phone at 6 and 12 months. We analyzed change in intent after intervention, time to screening, overall screening completion rates, and screening completion by CCRAT risk score tertile.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 61.7% of patients were aged <60 years, 58.7% female, and 94.3% with college or higher education. Time to screening did not differ between arms (hazard ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.18], P = 0.24). At 12 months, screening completion was 38.6% with CCRAT vs 44.0% with education (odds ratio [OR] 0.80 [95% CI 0.47-1.37], P = 0.41). Changes in screening intent did not differ between the risk assessment and education arms (precontemplation to contemplation: OR 1.52 [95% CI 0.81-2.86], P = 0.19; contemplation to precontemplation: OR 1.93 [95% CI 0.45-8.34], P = 0.38). There were higher screening completion rates at 12 months in the top CCRAT risk tertile (52.6%) vs the bottom (32.4%) and middle (31.6%) tertiles (P = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

CCRAT risk assessment did not increase screening participation or intent. Risk stratification might motivate persons classified as higher CRC risk to complete screening, but unintentionally discourage screening among persons not identified as higher risk.

Assessing the Feasibility of an Online Module for Promoting Cancer Prevention Measures

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this pilot study were (1) to develop a cancer prevention module consisting of an animated video and a short questionnaire, (2) to assess new knowledge gained by the participants, and (3) to solicit feedback for improving the cancer prevention module.

METHODS

Volunteers who previously agreed to be contacted regarding research studies were approached via email. After completing the cancer prevention module, a list of cancer prevention recommendations was provided. Newly gained knowledge was assessed, and feedback was solicited.

RESULTS

Overall, 290 of 3165 individuals contacted completed the online module (9.2%), and 38.6% of the participants indicated that they learned something new about cancer prevention measures. A similar proportion, 41.4%, mentioned that they learned about measures that were recommended and due. Paradoxically, response rate was the lowest in the ≥50 year old age group although this group reported the highest rate of learning about new cancer prevention measures. Feedback was favorable in that 70.7% mentioned that the recommendations were helpful to them personally, 69.3% felt motivated to take action to reduce their risk of cancers, and 67% would recommend the online module to their friends and family.

CONCLUSION

We developed an online cancer prevention module which seems to be suitable for promoting cancer prevention measures as feedback was favorable, and new knowledge was gained. Future efforts will focus on using the module to promote cancer prevention measures to the general public particularly for the ≥50 year age group.

Feasibility of Mobile Technology to Identify and Address Patients' Unmet Social Needs in a Primary Care Clinic

Mobile health tools may overcome barriers to social needs screening; however, there are limited data on the feasibility of using these tools in clinical settings. The objective was to determine the feasibility of using a mobile health system to screen for patients' social needs. In one large primary care clinic, the authors tested a tablet-based system that screens patients for social needs, transmits results to the electronic health record, and alerts providers. All adult patients presenting for a nonurgent visit were eligible. The authors evaluated the feasibility of the system and conducted follow-up surveys to determine acceptability and if patients accessed resources through the process. All providers were surveyed. Of the 252 patients approached, 219 (86.9%) completed the screen. Forty-three (19.6%) required assistance with the tablet, and 150 (68.5%) screened positive for at least 1 unmet need (food, housing, or transportation). Of the 150, 103 (68.7%) completed a follow-up survey. The majority agreed that people would learn to use the tablet quickly. Forty-eight patients (46.6%) reported contacting at least 1 community organization through the process. Of the 27 providers, 23 (85.2%) completed a survey and >70% agreed the system would result in patients having better access to resources. It was feasible to use a tablet-based system to screen for social needs. Clinics considering using mobile tools will need to determine how to screen patients who may need assistance with the tool and how to connect patients to resources through the system based on the burden of unmet needs.

Applying the Electronic Health Literacy Lens: Systematic Review of Electronic Health Interventions Targeted at Socially Disadvantaged Groups

BACKGROUND

Electronic health (eHealth) has the potential to improve health outcomes. However, eHealth systems need to match the eHealth literacy needs of users to be equitably adopted. Socially disadvantaged groups have lower access and skills to use technologies and are at risk of being digitally marginalized, leading to the potential widening of health disparities.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to explore the role of eHealth literacy and user involvement in developing eHealth interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across 10 databases for eHealth interventions targeted at older adults, ethnic minority groups, low-income groups, low-literacy groups, and rural communities. The eHealth Literacy Framework was used to examine the eHealth literacy components of reviewed interventions. The results were analyzed using narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies reporting on the results of 48 interventions were evaluated. Most studies were targeted at older adults and ethnic minorities, with only 2 studies focusing on low-literacy groups. eHealth literacy was not considered in the development of any of the studies, and no eHealth literacy assessment was conducted. User involvement in designing interventions was limited, and eHealth intervention developmental frameworks were rarely used. Strategies to assist users in engaging with technical systems were seldom included in the interventions, and accessibility features were limited. The results of the included studies also provided inconclusive evidence on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight that eHealth literacy is generally overlooked in developing eHealth interventions targeted at socially disadvantaged groups, whereas evidence about the effectiveness of such interventions is limited. To ensure equal access and inclusiveness in the age of eHealth, eHealth literacy of disadvantaged groups needs to be addressed to help avoid a digital divide. This will assist the realization of recent technological advancements and, importantly, improve health equity.

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Decreasing Barriers and Increasing Facilitators for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, in part, because one third of Americans fail to get screened. In a prior randomized controlled trial, we found that an iPad patient decision aid called Mobile Patient Technology for Health-CRC (mPATH-CRC) doubled the proportion of patients who completed colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

All data for the current analysis were collected as part of a randomized controlled trial to determine the impact of mPATH-CRC on receipt of colorectal cancer screening within 24 weeks. Participants were enrolled from six community-based primary care practices between June 2014 and May 2016 and randomized to either usual care or mPATH-CRC. Six potential mediators of the intervention effect on screening were considered. The Iacobucci method was used to assess the significance of the mediation.

RESULTS

A total of 408 patients had complete data for all potential mediators. Overall, the potential mediators accounted for approximately three fourths (76.3%) of the effect of the program on screening completion. Perceived benefits, self-efficacy, ability to state a screening decision, and patient-provider discussion were statistically significant mediators. Patient-provider discussion accounted for the largest proportion of the effect of mPATH-CRC (70.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

mPATH-CRC increased completion of colorectal cancer screening by affecting patient-level and system-level mediators. However, the most powerful mediator was the occurrence of a patient-provider discussion about screening. Digital interventions like mPATH-CRC are an important adjunct to the patient-provider encounter.

IMPACT

Understanding the factors that mediated mPATH-CRC's success is paramount to developing other effective interventions.

How effective are digital interventions in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women? A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women and their unborn babies are at increased risk of complications as a result of flu, yet uptake of the flu vaccination in the UK remains low. Digital interventions have proven effectiveness in changing health behaviour, but their effectiveness in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women has not been examined. This protocol details the design and methodology of a systematic review and meta-analysis, examining the effectiveness of digital interventions in increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases will be searched using appropriate search terms related to vaccination, pregnancy and flu. Randomised, non-randomised, quasi randomised controlled trials and other quantitative study designs will be eligible for inclusion, and studies will present the rate of flu vaccination amongst pregnant women of digital interventions compared to non-digital interventions, or usual care. No date or study country restrictions will be put on included studies, but studies will be published in English.

DISCUSSION

This is the first known systematic review to examine the effectiveness of digital interventions in increasing the rate of flu vaccination amongst pregnant women. This review has the potential to inform whether digital interventions are an appropriate and successful method of increasing flu vaccination amongst pregnant women, and to determine which mode of digital intervention is most effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number pending.

Health information seeking behaviors among individuals with young-onset and average-onset colorectal cancer: an international cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

Our objective was to evaluate health information seeking behaviors in yCRC (young onset colorectal cancer, diagnosed ≤ 50 years) and aCRC (average-age onset colorectal cancer, diagnosed ≥ 50 years).

METHODS

We administered an international, Internet-based survey to ask individuals diagnosed with CRC how they seek health information, including sources sought and utilization behaviors. We also asked participants their preferences for digital technologies.

RESULTS

In total 1125 individuals including 455 with yCRC (68.6% female) and 670 with aCRC (53.5% female) participated. There were similar frequencies of seeking among participants with yCRC and aCRC across all sources except for the Internet. Healthcare providers were the most frequently sought source with similar proportions of participants indicating their response as "always" (yCRC, 43.7% vs. aCRC, 43.2%, p = 0.91). We also observed differences in utilization behaviors with more participants with yCRC using the Internet first when seeking information (yCRC 31.6% vs. aCRC 24.3%, p < 0.05) and those with aCRC seeking healthcare providers first (aCRC 61.9% vs. yCRC 45.5%, p < 0.05). With respect to digital technologies, we found a higher proportion of yCRC participants owning smartphones and indicating use of apps related to health/wellness and cancer.

CONCLUSION

Individuals with yCRC and aCRC similarly sought the same resources for health information on CRC. However, they differed with respect to utilization behaviors, particularly a greater reliance on digital technologies among individuals with yCRC. These have implications for informing age-specific resources and information to support patients.

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).

Premature Fecal Immunochemical Testing in British Columbia Canada: a Retrospective Review of Physician and Screening Participant Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is an evidence-based strategy to reduce CRC-related mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This study identifies physician and participant characteristics, as well as previous FIT values associated with premature FIT usage.

DESIGN

This is a retrospective review of all FITs ordered from January 1, 2016, until June 30, 2017. For each ordered FIT, the participant's chart was reviewed to identify if a previous FIT had occurred in the prior 21 months. A premature FIT was defined as an ordered test with a negative FIT in the preceding 21 months.

PARTICIPANTS

Screening participants were average risk for CRC, aged 50-74, and had a FIT ordered by their primary care provider in British Columbia, Canada.

MAIN MEASURES

The BC College of Physicians and Surgeons' database was used to identify the location of referring physician, date of graduation from medical school, and gender. The participant's age, gender, and value of previous FIT were recorded. Physician and participant variables and previous FIT value were examined with logistic regression to identify associations with premature FIT ordering.

KEY RESULTS

In total, 385,375 FITs were ordered during this period with 116,727 representing participants returning following a previous negative FIT. In total, 35,148 (30.1%) returned early for screening. Men were more likely to return early than women (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.11-1.17; p < 0.0001). Male physicians were more likely to order premature FITs (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.24; p < 0.0001). A higher quantitative FIT value (ng/mL) of the previous FIT was also associated with early screening (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.09-1.14; < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that approximately 30% of FIT tests, ordered for CRC screening, were ordered before they were due. This may lead to wasted resources, unnecessary participant stress, and unwarranted patient risk.

Are Patient Decision Aids Used in Clinical Practice after Rigorous Evaluation? A Survey of Trial Authors

Background. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are effective interventions to support patient involvement in health care decisions, but there is little use in practice. Our study aimed to determine subsequent PtDA use in clinical practice following published randomized controlled trials. Design. A descriptive study using an e-mail-embedded questionnaire survey targeting authors of 133 trials included in Cochrane Reviews of PtDAs (106 authors). We classified PtDA level of use as a) implementation, defined as integrating within care processes; b) dissemination to target users with planned strategies; and c) diffusion, defined as passive, unplanned spread. We conducted content analysis to identify barriers and enablers guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use. Results. Ninety-eight authors responded (92.5%) on 108 trialed PtDAs. Reported levels of use were implementation (n = 29; 28%), dissemination to target user(s) (n = 9; 9%), and diffusion (n = 7; 7%); 57 (55%) reported no uptake, and 1 had no response (1%). Barriers to use in clinical practice were identified at the level of researchers (e.g., lack of posttrial plan), PtDAs (e.g., outdated, delivery mechanism), clinicians (e.g., disagreed with PtDA use), and practice environment (e.g., infrastructure support; funding). Enablers were online delivery, organizational endorsement (e.g., professional organization, charity, government), and design for and integration into the care process. Limitations. Self-report bias and potential for recall bias. Conclusions. Only 44% of PtDA trial authors indicated some level of subsequent use following their trial. The most commonly reported barriers were lack of funding, outdated PtDAs, and clinician disagreement with PtDA use. To improve subsequent use, researchers should codesign PtDAs with end users to ensure fit with clinical practice and develop an implementation plan. National systems (e.g., platforms, endorsement, funding) can enable use.

Interactivity in a Decision Aid: Findings From a Decision Aid to Technologically Enhance Shared Decision Making RCT

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) remains underutilized. Decision aids (DAs) can increase patient knowledge, intent, and CRCS rates compared with "usual care," but whether interactivity further increases CRCS rate remains unknown.

STUDY DESIGN

A two-armed RCT compared the effect of a web-based DA that interactively assessed patient CRC risk and clarified patient preference for specific CRCS test to a web-based DA with the same content but without the interactive tools.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

The study sites were 12 community- and three university-based primary care practices (56 physicians) in southeastern Michigan. Participants were men and women aged 50-75 years not current on CRCS.

INTERVENTION

Random allocation to interactive DA (interactive arm) or non-interactive DA (non-interactive arm).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was medical record documentation of CRCS 6 months after the intervention. Secondary outcome was patient decision quality (i.e., knowledge, preference clarification, and intent) measured immediately before and after DA use, and immediately after the office visit. To determine that either DA had a positive effect on CRCS adherence, usual care CRCS rates were determined from the three university-based practices among patients eligible for but not participating in the study.

RESULTS

Data were collected between 2012 and 2014; analysis began in 2015. At 6 months, CRCS rate was 36.1% (95% CI=30.5%, 42.2%) in the interactive arm (n=284) and 40.5% (95% CI=34.7%, 46.6%) in the non-interactive arm (n=286, p=0.29). Usual care CRCS rate (n=440) was 18.6% (95% CI=15.2%, 22.7%), significantly lower than both arms (p<0.001). Knowledge, attitude, self-efficacy, test preference, and intent increased significantly within each arm versus baseline, but the rate was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSIONS

The interactive DA did not improve the outcome compared to the non-interactive DA. This suggests that the resources needed to create and maintain the interactive components are not justifiable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01514786.

Screening individuals' experiences of colonoscopy and colon capsule endoscopy; a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

The standard investigation in colorectal cancer screening (optical colonoscopy [OC]) has a less invasive alternative with the colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The experiences of screening individuals are needed to support a decision aid (DA) and to provide a patient view in future health technology assessments (HTA). We aimed to explore the experiences of CCE at home and OC in an outpatient clinic by screening participants who experienced both investigations on the same bowel preparation.

METHODS

In a mixed methods study, Danish screening individuals with a positive immunological fecal occult blood test (FIT) were consecutively included and underwent both CCE and OC in the same bowel preparation. They answered questionnaires about discomfort during CCE, delivered at home, and during a following OC in the outpatient clinic. Data were calculated in percentages and Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for comparisons. Among the 253 included patients, 10 participants were selected for a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the two examinations. The analysis and interpretation of the transcribed data were inspired by Ricoeur.

RESULTS

Questionnaire data were received from 239 participants and revealed significant less discomfort during the CCE than the OC. Interview data included explained discomfort elements in two categories: 'The examination' and 'The setting'. Compared to OC, the CCE was experienced with less pain, embarrassment and invasiveness, but presented challenges and disadvantages as well, i.e., a large camera capsule to swallow, a longer waiting time for test results after CCE and an additional OC, if pathologies were found. The home setting for CCE delivery made the participants feel less like they were ill or patients less restricted and that they received more personal care, but could induce technical challenges.

CONCLUSION

In screening individuals, CCE at home was associated with significantly less discomfort compared to OC at a hospital, and multiple reasons for this was identified.

The Reach and Feasibility of an Interactive Lung Cancer Screening Decision Aid Delivered by Patient Portal

OBJECTIVE

Health systems could adopt population-level approaches to screening by identifying potential screening candidates from the electronic health record and reaching out to them via the patient portal. However, whether patients would read or act on sent information is unknown. We examined the feasibility of this digital health outreach strategy.

METHODS

We conducted a single-arm pragmatic trial in a large academic health system. An electronic health record algorithm identified primary care patients who were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS). Identified patients were sent a patient portal invitation to visit a LCS interactive Web site which assessed screening eligibility and included a decision aid. The primary outcome was screening completion. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who read the invitation, visited the interactive Web site, and completed the interactive Web site.

RESULTS

We sent portal invitations to 1,000 patients. Almost all patients (86%, 862/1,000) read the invitation, 404 (40%) patients visited the interactive Web site, and 349 patients (35%) completed it. Of the 99 patients who were confirmed screening eligible by the Web site, 81 made a screening decision (30% wanted screening, 44% unsure, 26% declined screening), and 22 patients had a chest computed tomography completed.

CONCLUSION

The digital outreach strategy reached the majority of patient portal users. While the study focused on LCS, this digital outreach approach could be generalized to other health needs. Given the broad reach and potential low cost of this digital strategy, future research should investigate best practices for implementing the system.

The gap between knowledge and undergoing colorectal cancer screening using the Health Belief Model: A national survey

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health issue, and before the initiation of a national cancer screening program, there is a need to examine the acceptance of the public to undergo CRC screening and explore potential barriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A nationwide survey was conducted using an electronic platform to collect demographic variables and using the Health Belief Model to assess attitudes and behavior of participants as well as the knowledge about and intent to undergo CRC screening. At the end of the survey, participants from Riyadh were invited to get screened for CRC.

RESULTS

Responses from 5720 individuals covering all the 13 jurisdictions of Saudi Arabia were collected. Males represented 71.53% of the respondents; the mean age was 43.28 years and 15.24% had already undergone CRC screening using various methods, mostly colonoscopy (72.73%). The mean knowledge score was 11.05 (standard deviation 4.4, range 1-23), with no difference between genders, jurisdictions of the Kingdom, between those who expressed interest in screening and those who did not, and between those who accepted the invitation to undergo CRC screening and those who did not. Participants displayed positive attitudes toward both CRC screening and colonoscopy as a screening tool, and 73% expressed willingness to undergo screening. On multivariate analysis, male gender was the only factor associated with a higher probability of accepting screening, whereas neither knowledge nor willingness to undergo screening predicted accepting the invitation to screening.

CONCLUSION

Although the majority of participants were willing to undergo screening, no significant correlation between knowledge and willingness to undergo screening were predictors of screening uptake. Other areas that could be targeted in the promotion of CRC screening uptake to bridge the gap between "knowing" and "doing" should be explored.

Colorectal cancer incidence among Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites in the United States

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence has declined over the past two decades; however, these declines have not occurred equally in all populations. To better understand the impact of CRC among Hispanics, we examined incidence trends by age and Hispanic ethnicity.

METHODS

Using data from the National Program of Cancer Registries and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program, we estimated CRC incidence rates during the period 2001-2014, and across all 50 U.S. states. We estimated incidence rates in younger (age < 50 years) and older (age ≥ 50 years) adults by anatomic subsite and stage at diagnosis, separately for non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanic Whites.

RESULTS

CRC incidence rates declined among older (age ≥ 50 years) Whites and Hispanics, but Whites experienced a greater decline (31% vs. 27% relative decline among Hispanics). In contrast to older adults, there were continued increases in CRC incidence from 2001 to 2014 among younger (age 20-49 years) adults. The largest relative increases in incidence occurred in Hispanics aged 20-29 years (90% vs. 50% relative increase among Whites).

CONCLUSIONS

Opposing incidence trends in younger versus older Hispanics may reflect generational differences in CRC risk by birth cohort, as well as environmental exposures and lifestyle-related risk factors associated with immigration and acculturation.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.