scholarly journals Using Implementation Science to Disseminate a Lung Cancer Screening Education Intervention Through Community Health Workers

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-173
Author(s):  
Lovoria B. Williams ◽  
Brent J. Shelton ◽  
Maria L. Gomez ◽  
Yazan D. Al-Mrayat ◽  
Jamie L. Studts
2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 1152-1169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lovoria B. Williams ◽  
Amber McCall ◽  
Thomas V. Joshua ◽  
Stephen W. Looney ◽  
Martha S. Tingen

Uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening is extremely low. Efforts to promote screening are warranted, especially among disparate groups such as racial/ethnic minorities and those of lower socioeconomic status. This article describes the design and implementation strategies of the ongoing cancer-Community Awareness Access Research and Education (c-CARE) program. The purpose of c-CARE is to increase community awareness of lung cancer screening through education. Community health workers were trained to implement the intervention in 12 community sites. The Health Belief Model guided the evaluation and intervention development methods. Aims include changing participants’ knowledge, attitude, and beliefs related to lung cancer and increasing lung cancer early detection and prevention behaviors by identifying and connecting high-risk and/or nicotine-dependent individuals to LDCT screening and/or tobacco cessation services. If effective, these methods could model increased dissemination to other high-risk communities.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 894-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanja Percac-Lima ◽  
Jeffrey M. Ashburner ◽  
Nancy A. Rigotti ◽  
Elyse R. Park ◽  
Yuchiao Chang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 117-117
Author(s):  
Soumya J. Niranjan ◽  
William Opoku-Agyeman ◽  
Tara Bowman ◽  
Claudia M. Hardy ◽  
Monica L. Baskin ◽  
...  

117 Background: Disease stage at the time of diagnosis is the most important determinant of prognosis for lung cancer. Despite demonstrated effectiveness of lung cancer screening (LCS) in reducing lung cancer mortality, early detection continues to elude populations with the highest risk for lung cancer death. Consistent with the national rate, current screening rate in Alabama is dismal at 4.2%. While public awareness of LCS may be a likely cause there are no studies that have thoroughly evaluated current knowledge of LCS within the Deep South. Therefore, we measured (LCS) knowledge before and after receiving education delivered by Community Health Advisors (CHAs) among high-risk individuals living in medically-underserved communities of Alabama and to determine impact of psychological, demographic, health status and cognitive factors on rate of lung cancer screening participation. Methods: Participants were recruited from one urban county and six rural Black Belt counties (characterized by poverty, rurality, unemployment, low educational attainment and disproportionate lack of access to health services).100 individuals (i) aged between 55 to 80 years (ii) Currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. (iii) Have at least a total of 30-pack-year smoking history were recruited. Knowledge scores to assess lung cancer knowledge were calculated. Paired t-test was used to assess pre and post knowledge score improvement. Screening for lung cancer was modeled as a function of predisposed factors (age, gender, insurance, education, fatalism, smoking status, and history of family lung cancer). Results: Average age was 62.94(SD = 6.28), mostly female (54%); mostly current smokers (53% ). Most participants (80.85%) reported no family history of cancer. Fatalism was low, with a majority of the participants disagreeing that a cancer diagnosis is pre-destined (67.7%) and that there are no treatments for lung cancer (88.66%). Overall, lung cancer knowledge increased significantly from baseline of 4.64(SD = 2.37) to 7.61(SD = 2.26). Of the 100 participants, only 23 underwent screening due to lack of access to primary care providers and reluctance of PCPs to provide referral to LCS. 65% of those who were screened reported family history of lung cancer. Regression analysis revealed no significant association between risk factors and the decision to get screened by participants. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that while CHA delivered education initiatives increases lung cancer screening knowledge, there are significant structural barriers that prohibit effective utilization of LCS which needs to be addressed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1506-1506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanja Percac-Lima ◽  
Jeffrey M Ashburner ◽  
Nancy Rigotti ◽  
Elyse R. Park ◽  
Yuchiao Chang ◽  
...  

1506 Background: Annual chest computed tomography (CT) can decrease lung cancer mortality in high risk individuals. Patient navigation (PN) has been shown to improve cancer screening rates in underserved populations. We evaluated the impact of PN on lung cancer screening (LCS) in current smokers in community health centers (CHC). Methods: Current smokers aged 55-77 receiving care in five CHC affiliated with an academic medical center were randomized to intervention (n = 400) or control (n = 800) groups. In the intervention arm, patient navigators (PNs) determined eligibility for LCS, provided brief smoking cessation counseling, introduced shared decision making about LCS, scheduled appointments with the primary care provider (PCP), reminded patients about appointments and PCPs to order CTs, and helped patients attend testing and follow-up any abnormal results. Control patients received usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group who had any chest CT during the study period. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving lung screening CTs and the number of lung cancers diagnosed in each group. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar between randomized groups. From March 2016-January 2017, PNs contacted 332 (83%) of intervention patients; 76 refused further participation. Of participating patients, 130 (51%) were eligible for LCS. Exclusions included insufficient smoking history (n = 117), competing comorbidities (n = 5), moved (n = 2), and died (n = 2). In intention-to-treat analyses, 124 intervention patients (31%) had chest CT vs. 138 control patients (17.3%, p < 0.01). Lung cancer screening CTs were performed in 94 intervention patients (23.5%) vs. 69 control patients (8.6%, p < 0.01). Eight lung cancers were diagnosed in intervention patients (2%) vs. 4 in controls (0.5%). Conclusions: A patient navigation program implemented in community health centers significantly increased lung cancer screening among current smokers. PNs may help underserved low-income current smokers complete LCS and improve equity in care while decreasing lung cancer mortality. Clinical trial information: 2015P002239.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document