scholarly journals Making It Work: Health Care Provider Perspectives on Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 777-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clement K. Gwede ◽  
◽  
Stacy N. Davis ◽  
Gwendolyn P. Quinn ◽  
Alexis M. Koskan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Provider ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Work Health

scholarly journals A Personalized Approach of Patient–Health Care Provider Communication Regarding Colorectal Cancer Screening Options

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Gabriela Sava ◽  
James G. Dolan ◽  
Jerrold H. May ◽  
Luis G. Vargas
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Provider ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Care Providers

Background. Current colorectal cancer screening guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force endorse multiple options for average-risk patients and recommend that screening choices should be guided by individual patient preferences. Implementing these recommendations in practice is challenging because they depend on accurate and efficient elicitation and assessment of preferences from patients who are facing a novel task. Objective. To present a methodology for analyzing the sensitivity and stability of a patient’s preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening options and to provide a starting point for a personalized discussion between the patient and the health care provider about the selection of the appropriate screening option. Methods. This research is a secondary analysis of patient preference data collected as part of a previous study. We propose new measures of preference sensitivity and stability that can be used to determine if additional information provided would result in a change to the initially most preferred colorectal cancer screening option. Results. Illustrative results of applying the methodology to the preferences of 2 patients, of different ages, are provided. The results show that different combinations of screening options are viable for each patient and that the health care provider should emphasize different information during the medical decision-making process. Conclusion. Sensitivity and stability analysis can supply health care providers with key topics to focus on when communicating with a patient and the degree of emphasis to place on each of them to accomplish specific goals. The insights provided by the analysis can be used by health care providers to approach communication with patients in a more personalized way, by taking into consideration patients’ preferences before adding their own expertise to the discussion.

scholarly journals Trends in self-reported health care provider recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by race

2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 70-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shayna E. Rich ◽  
Fatmatta M. Kuyateh ◽  
Diane M. Dwyer ◽  
Carmela Groves ◽  
Eileen K. Steinberger
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Provider ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Reported Health

Costs and Cost Effectiveness of a Health Care Provider–Directed Intervention to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (34) ◽  
pp. 8877-8883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Wolf ◽  
Karen A. Fitzner ◽  
Eowyn F. Powell ◽  
Kathryn R. McCaffrey ◽  
A. Simon Pickard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Information Technology ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Provider ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
The Cost

Purpose Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider–directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. Methods Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. Results Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to $196 per additional veteran screened. Conclusion An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.

scholarly journals Health Care Provider Characteristics Associated With Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences and Use

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lila J. Finney Rutten ◽  
Philip D. Parks ◽  
Emily Weiser ◽  
Chun Fan ◽  
Debra J. Jacobson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Care Provider ◽  
Care Provider ◽  
Provider Characteristics

scholarly journals Cost and Effectiveness of Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers in West Virginia

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 891-897
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen Conn ◽  
Stephenie Kennedy-Rea ◽  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Adam Baus ◽  
Sonja Hoover ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
West Virginia ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Return Rate ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Return Rates ◽  
Phone Calls

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.

scholarly journals Clinical Perspectives on Colorectal Cancer Screening at Latino-Serving Federally Qualified Health Centers

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria D. Coronado ◽  
Amanda F. Petrik ◽  
Mark Spofford ◽  
Jocelyn Talbot ◽  
Huyen Hoai Do ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers

scholarly journals Use of Evidence-Based Interventions and Implementation Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 1044-1052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swann Arp Adams ◽  
Catherine L. Rohweder ◽  
Jennifer Leeman ◽  
Daniela B. Friedman ◽  
Ziya Gizlice ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers

scholarly journals Assessing Levels and Correlates of Implementation of Evidence-Based Approaches for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study With Federally Qualified Health Centers

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 1008-1015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Walker ◽  
Betsy Risendal ◽  
Michelle C. Kegler ◽  
Daniela B. Friedman ◽  
Bryan J. Weiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Medical Record ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Federally Qualified Health Centers ◽  
Record System ◽  
Cross Sectional

Multiple evidence-based approaches (EBAs) exist to improve colorectal cancer screening in health clinics. The success of these approaches is tied to effective implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of EBAs for colorectal cancer screening and clinic-level correlates of implementation in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We conducted descriptive and cross-sectional analyses using data collected from FQHC clinics across seven states ( n = 51). A clinic representative completed electronic surveys about clinic characteristics (e.g., size, patient characteristics, and medical record system characteristics) and the implementation of Community Guide recommended EBAs (e.g., client reminders, small media, and provider assessment and feedback). We used bivariate Spearman correlations to assess clinic-level correlates with implementation outcomes. Most clinics were planning to implement, in the early implementation stages, or inconsistently implementing EBAs. No EBA was fully implemented by more than nine (17.6%) clinics. Clinic size variables were inversely related to implementation levels of one-on-one education; medical record variables were directly related to implementation levels of client and provider reminders as well as provider assessment and feedback; and rapid and timely feedback from clinic leaders was directly associated with implementation levels of four out of six EBAs. Given the varying levels of implementation, clinics need to assess current use of implementation strategies and improve effective program delivery to increase colorectal cancer screening among their patients. In addition, clinics should also consider how their characteristics may support or serve as a barrier to implementation in their respective settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document