Breast and cervical cancer programs' success in maintaining screening during periods of high COVID-19: A qualitative multi-case study analysis

Objective

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) funded programs (recipients) experienced significant declines in breast and cervical cancer screening volume. However, 6 recipients maintained breast and/or cervical cancer screening volume during July-December 2020 despite their states' high COVID-19 test percent positivity. We led a qualitative multi-case study to explore these recipients' actions that may have contributed to screening volume maintenance.

Methods

We conducted 22 key informant interviews with recipients, screening provider sites, and partner organizations. Interviews explored organizational and operational changes; screening barriers; actions taken to help maintain screening volume; and support for provider sites to continue screening. We documented contextual factors that may have influenced these actions, including program structures; clinic capacity; and state COVID-19 policies.

Results

Thematic analysis revealed crosscutting themes at the recipient, provider site, and partner levels. Recipients made changes to administrative processes to reduce burden on provider sites and delivered tailored technical assistance to support safe screening. Provider sites modified clinic protocols to increase patient safety, enhanced patient reminders for upcoming appointments, and increased patient education on the importance of timely screening during the pandemic. Partners worked with provider sites to identify and reduce patients' structural barriers to screening.

Conclusion

Study findings provide lessons learned to inform emergency preparedness-focused planning and operations, as well as routine operations for NBCCEDP recipient programs, other cancer screening initiatives, primary care clinics, and chronic disease prevention programs.

Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: 3 Community Guide Systematic Reviews

INTRODUCTION

Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community.

RESULTS

The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.5‒23.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.4‒21.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.5‒17.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status.

DISCUSSION

Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

Factors that support readiness to implement integrated evidence-based practice to increase cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics.

METHODS

Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake.

RESULTS

We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners' readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities.

DISCUSSION

The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics' readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

Factors That Support Sustainability of Health Systems Change to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics.

METHODS

We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics.

RESULTS

Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Mental Health Among Parents of Children Aged <18 Years and Unpaid Caregivers of Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, December 2020 and February-⁠March 2021

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly two thirds of unpaid caregivers of adults reported adverse mental or behavioral health symptoms, compared with approximately one third of noncaregivers^† (1). In addition, 27% of parents of children aged <18 years reported that their mental health had worsened during the pandemic (2). To examine mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic among U.S. adults on the basis of their classification as having a parenting role (i.e., unpaid persons caring for children and adolescents aged <18 years, referred to as children in this report) or being an unpaid caregiver of adults (i.e., persons caring for adults aged ≥18 years),^§ CDC analyzed data from cross-sectional surveys that were administered during December 2020 and February-March 2021 for The COVID-19 Outbreak Public Evaluation (COPE) Initiative.^¶ Respondents were categorized as parents only, caregivers of adults only, parents-caregivers (persons in both roles), or nonparents/noncaregivers (persons in neither role). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for any adverse mental health symptoms, particularly suicidal ideation, were higher among all respondents who were parents, caregivers of adults, or both compared with respondents who were nonparents/noncaregivers and were highest among persons in both roles (parents-caregivers) (any adverse mental health symptoms: aOR = 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1-6.2; serious suicidal ideation: aOR = 8.2, 95% CI = 6.5-10.4). These findings highlight that parents and caregivers, especially those balancing roles both as parents and caregivers, experienced higher levels of adverse mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic than adults without these responsibilities. Caregivers who had someone to rely on for support had lower odds of experiencing any adverse mental health symptoms. Additional measures are needed to improve mental health among parents, caregivers, and parents-caregivers.

Patient navigator reported patient barriers and delivered activities in two large federally-funded cancer screening programs

Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.

Correlates of colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care clinics serving low income, medically underserved populations

INTRODUCTION

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts.

METHODS

Using data (2015-16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates.

RESULTS

Clinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (<1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates.

CONCLUSIONS

These results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs.

A qualitative analysis of smokers' perceptions about lung cancer screening

Background

In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending lung cancer screening for high risk smokers aged 55–80 years using low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. In light of these updated recommendations, there is a need to understand smokers’ knowledge of and experiences with lung cancer screening in order to inform the design of patient education and tobacco cessation programs. The purpose of this study is to describe results of a qualitative study examining smokers’ perceptions around lung cancer screening tests.

Methods

In 2009, prior to the release of the updated USPSTF recommendations, we conducted 12 120-min, gender-specific focus groups with 105 current smokers in Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. Focus group facilitators asked participants about their experience with three lung cancer screening tests, including CT scan, chest x-ray, and sputum cytology. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using constant comparative methods.

Results

Participants were 41–67 years-old, with a mean smoking history of 38.9 pack-years. Overall, 34.3% would meet the USPSTF’s current eligibility criteria for screening. Most participants were unaware of all three lung cancer screening tests. The few participants who had been screened recalled limited information about the test. Nevertheless, many participants expressed a strong desire to pursue lung cancer screening. Using the social ecological model for health promotion, we identified potential barriers to lung cancer screening at the 1) health care system level (cost of procedure, confusion around results), 2) cultural level (fatalistic beliefs, distrust of medical system), and 3) individual level (lack of knowledge, denial of risk, concerns about the procedure). Although this study was conducted prior to the updated USPSTF recommendations, these findings provide a baseline for future studies examining smokers’ perceptions of lung cancer screening.

Conclusion

We recommend clear and patient-friendly educational tools to improve patient understanding of screening risks and benefits and the use of best practices to help smokers quit. Further qualitative studies are needed to assess changes in smokers’ perceptions as lung cancer screening with CT scan becomes more widely used in community practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4496-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of Community Health Workers and Patient Navigators to Improve Cancer Outcomes Among Patients Served by Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Systematic Literature Review

Introduction: In the United States, disparities in cancer screening, morbidity, and mortality are well documented, and often are related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic indicators including income, education, and healthcare access. Public health approaches that address social determinants of health have the greatest potential public health benefit, and can positively impact health disparities. As public health interventions, community health workers (CHWs), and patient navigators (PNs) work to address disparities and improve cancer outcomes through education, connecting patients to and navigating them through the healthcare system, supporting patient adherence to screening and diagnostic services, and providing social support and linkages to financial and community resources. Clinical settings, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to provide care to medically underserved communities, and thus are also valuable in the effort to address health disparities. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of cancer-related CHW/PN interventions in FQHCs, and to describe the components and characteristics of those interventions in order to guide future intervention development and evaluation.

Method: We searched five databases for peer-reviewed CHW/PN intervention studies conducted in partnership with FQHCs with a focus on cancer, carried out in the United States, and published in English between January 1990 and December 2013.

Results: We identified 24 articles, all reporting positive outcomes of CHW/PNs interventions in FQHCs. CHW/PN interventions most commonly promoted breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening and/or referral for diagnostic resolution. Studies were supported largely through federal funding. Partnerships with academic institutions and community-based organizations provided support and helped develop capacity among FQHC clinic leadership and community members.

Discussion: Both the FQHC system and CHW/PNs were borne from the need to address persistent, complex health disparities among medically underserved communities. Our findings support the effectiveness of CHW/PN programs to improve completion and timeliness of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs, and highlight intervention components useful to design and sustainability.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services

CONTEXT

Screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The Guide to Community Preventive Services previously conducted systematic reviews on the effectiveness of 11 interventions to increase screening for these cancers. This article presents results of updated systematic reviews for nine of these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Five databases were searched for studies published during January 2004-October 2008. Studies had to (1) be a primary investigation of one or more intervention category; (2) be conducted in a country with a high-income economy; (3) provide information on at least one cancer screening outcome of interest; and (4) include screening use prior to intervention implementation or a concurrent group unexposed to the intervention category of interest. Forty-five studies were included in the reviews.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Recommendations were added for one-on-one education to increase screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and group education to increase mammography screening. Strength of evidence for client reminder interventions to increase FOBT screening was upgraded from sufficient to strong. Previous findings and recommendations for reducing out-of-pocket costs (breast cancer screening); provider assessment and feedback (breast, cervical, and FOBT screening); one-on-one education and client reminders (breast and cervical cancer screening); and reducing structural barriers (breast cancer and FOBT screening) were reaffirmed or unchanged. Evidence remains insufficient to determine effectiveness for the remaining screening tests and intervention categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate new and reaffirmed interventions effective in promoting recommended cancer screening, including colorectal cancer screening. Findings can be used in community and healthcare settings to promote recommended care. Important research gaps also are described.

Postdoctoral pharmacy industry fellowships: a descriptive analysis of programs and postgraduate positions

PURPOSE

Postdoctoral pharmacy industry fellowship programs and the employment of fellowship graduates are described.

METHODS

A list of postgraduate industry fellowships was gathered from the 2009 ASHP Midyear Clinical Meeting. Data regarding program characteristics were collected using the Personnel Placement Service database and program-specific brochures. After data compilation, a standardized survey was sent in January 2010 via e-mail to the point of contact for all programs to confirm the accuracy of the program's characteristics. Only academically affiliated industry fellowship programs were analyzed. Retrospective data were collected regarding the first position of employment for all fellows who graduated from the program between 2005 and 2009 and the position of those same individuals at the time of survey completion.

RESULTS

Surveys were sent to 64 postgraduate industry fellowship programs affiliated with a school of pharmacy, 56 (87.5%) of whom responded. The departmental breakdown for positions offered (n = 75) across all academically affiliated industry fellowship programs (including nonresponders) was as follows: medical affairs (38.7%, n = 29), clinical research (32.0%, n = 24), regulatory affairs (9.3%, n = 7), commercial (8.0%, n = 6), health economics and outcomes research (8.0%, n = 6), and pharmacovigilance (4.0%, n = 3). Data from fellows during years 1-5 after completion of the industry fellowship indicated that 90.5% of former fellows remained in the industry (n = 238).

CONCLUSION

The postgraduate industry fellowship programs surveyed indicated that the majority of fellowship graduates continued to hold positions in industry after program completion. The majority of industry fellowships and subsequent job placements occurred in the areas of medical affairs, clinical research, and regulatory affairs.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration

• The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. • The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. • Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. • A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. • These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

Fecal DNA testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening: the ColoSure™ test

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Screening has been shown to be effective in reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and fecal occult blood tests are all recommended screening tests that have widespread availability. Nevertheless, many people do not receive the evidence-based recommended screening for colorectal cancer. Additional stool-based methods have been developed that offer more options for colorectal cancer screening, including a variety of fecal DNA tests. The only fecal DNA test that is currently available commercially in the United States is ColoSure(TM), which is marketed as a non-invasive test that detects an epigenetic marker (methylated vimentin) associated with colorectal cancer and pre-cancerous adenomas. We examined the published literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of ColoSure and we briefly summarized the current colorectal cancer screening guidelines regarding fecal DNA testing. We also addressed the public health implications of the test and contextual issues surrounding the integration of fecal DNA testing into current colorectal cancer screening strategies. The primary goal was to provide a basic overview of ColoSure and identify gaps in knowledge and evidence that affect the recommendation and adoption of the test in colorectal cancer screening strategies.

Strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

Association between 9p21 genomic markers and heart disease: a meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Associations between chromosome 9p21 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and heart disease have been reported and replicated. If testing improves risk assessments using traditional factors, it may provide opportunities to improve public health.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a targeted systematic review of published literature for effect size, heterogeneity, publication bias, and strength of evidence and to consider whether testing might provide clinical utility.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic search via HuGE Navigator through January 2009 and review of reference lists from included articles.

STUDY SELECTION

English-language articles that tested for 9p21 SNPs with coronary heart/artery disease or myocardial infarction as primary outcomes. Included articles also provided race, numbers of participants, and data to compute an odds ratio (OR). Articles were excluded if reporting only intermediate outcomes (eg, atherosclerosis) or if all participants had existing disease. Twenty-five articles were initially identified and 16 were included. A follow-up search identified 6 additional articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent extraction was performed by 2 reviewers and consensus was reached. Credibility of evidence was assessed using published Venice criteria.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Forty-seven distinct data sets from the 22 articles were analyzed, including 35 872 cases and 95 837 controls. The summary OR for heart disease among individuals with 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-1.29), with low to moderate heterogeneity. Age at disease diagnosis was a significant covariate, with ORs of 1.35 (95% CI, 1.30-1.40) for age 55 years or younger and 1.21 (95% CI, 1.16-1.25) for age 75 years or younger. For a 65-year-old man, the 10-year heart disease risk for 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles would be 13.2% vs 11%. For a 40-year-old woman, the 10-year heart disease risk for 2 vs 1 at-risk alleles would be 2.4% vs 2.0%. Nearly identical but inverse results were found when comparing 1 vs 0 at-risk alleles. Three studies showed net reclassification indexes ranging from -0.1% to 4.8%.

CONCLUSION

We found a statistically significant association between 9p21 SNPs and heart disease that varied by age at disease onset, but the magnitude of the association was small.

Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers a systematic review of provider reminders

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet, not all people who should be screened are screened regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of provider reminder/recall interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. These interventions involve using systems to inform healthcare providers when individual clients are due (reminder) or overdue (recall) for specific cancer screening tests. Evidence in this review of studies published from 1986 through 2004 indicates that reminder/recall systems can effectively increase screening with mammography, Pap, fecal occult blood tests, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Additional research is needed to determine if provider reminder/recall systems are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy. Specific areas for further research are also suggested.

Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet not all people who should be screened are screened, either regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of interventions designed to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by increasing community access to these services. Evidence from these reviews indicates that screening for breast cancer (by mammography) has been increased effectively by reducing structural barriers and by reducing out-of pocket client costs, and that screening for colorectal cancer (by fecal occult blood test) has been increased effectively by reducing structural barriers. Additional research is needed to determine whether screening for cervical cancer (by Pap test) can be increased by reducing structural barriers and by reducing out-of-pocket costs, whether screening for colorectal cancer (fecal occult blood test) can be increased by reducing out-of-pocket costs, and whether these interventions are effective in increasing the use of other colorectal cancer screening procedures (i.e., flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, double contrast barium enema). Specific areas for further research are also suggested in this report.

Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet not all people who should be screened are screened, either regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of interventions designed to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by increasing community demand for these services. Evidence from these reviews indicates that screening for breast cancer (mammography) and cervical cancer (Pap test) has been effectively increased by use of client reminders, small media, and one-on-one education. Screening for colorectal cancer by fecal occult blood test has been increased effectively by use of client reminders and small media. Additional research is needed to determine whether client incentives, group education, and mass media are effective in increasing use of any of the three screening tests; whether one-on-one education increases screening for colorectal cancer; and whether any demand-enhancing interventions are effective in increasing the use of other colorectal cancer screening procedures (i.e., flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, double contrast barium enema). Specific areas for further research are also suggested in this report.