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

2019 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
pp. 105774 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna P. Sharma ◽  
Amy DeGroff ◽  
Lia Scott ◽  
Sundar Shrestha ◽  
Stephanie Melillo ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron J. Kruse-Diehr ◽  
Jill M. Oliveri ◽  
Robin C. Vanderpool ◽  
Mira L. Katz ◽  
Paul L. Reiter ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in Appalachian regions of the United States than in non-Appalachian regions. Given the availability of various screening modalities, there is critical need for culturally relevant interventions addressing multiple socioecological levels to reduce the regional CRC burden. In this report, we describe the development and baseline findings from year 1 of “Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia,” a 5-year, National Cancer Institute Cancer MoonshotSM-funded multilevel intervention (MLI) project to increase screening in Appalachian Kentucky and Ohio primary care clinics. Methods Project development was theory-driven and included the establishment of both an external Scientific Advisory Board and a Community Advisory Board to provide guidance in conducting formative activities in two Appalachian counties: one in Kentucky and one in Ohio. Activities included identifying and describing the study communities and primary care clinics, selecting appropriate evidence-based interventions (EBIs), and conducting a pilot test of MLI strategies addressing patient, provider, clinic, and community needs. Results Key informant interviews identified multiple barriers to CRC screening, including fear of screening, test results, and financial concerns (patient level); lack of time and competing priorities (provider level); lack of reminder or tracking systems and staff burden (clinic level); and cultural issues, societal norms, and transportation (community level). With this information, investigators then offered clinics a menu of EBIs and strategies to address barriers at each level. Clinics selected individually tailored MLIs, including improvement of patient education materials, provision of provider education (resulting in increased knowledge, p = .003), enhancement of electronic health record (EHR) systems and development of clinic screening protocols, and implementation of community CRC awareness events, all of which promoted stool-based screening (i.e., FIT or FIT-DNA). Variability among clinics, including differences in EHR systems, was the most salient barrier to EBI implementation, particularly in terms of tracking follow-up of positive screening results, whereas the development of clinic-wide screening protocols was found to promote fidelity to EBI components. Conclusions Lessons learned from year 1 included increased recognition of variability among the clinics and how they function, appreciation for clinic staff and provider workload, and development of strategies to utilize EHR systems. These findings necessitated a modification of study design for subsequent years. Trial registration Trial NCT04427527 is registered at https://clinicaltrials.gov and was registered on June 11, 2020.


2012 ◽  
Vol 107 ◽  
pp. S792-S793
Author(s):  
Kunut Kijsirichareanchai ◽  
Charoen Mankongpaisarnrung ◽  
Naree Panamonta ◽  
Grerk Sutamtewagul ◽  
Matt Soape ◽  
...  

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Ioannou ◽  
Kyle Sutherland ◽  
Daniel A. Sussman ◽  
Amar R. Deshpande

Abstract Background Adherence to colorectal cancer screening in the United States is suboptimal, particularly in medically underserved populations due to significant barriers to care. Unique accessible, low-cost, and non-invasive screening tests for this population could greatly benefit current rates. In this article, we assess patient preference and the impact of offering a blood-based test on screening rates in a cost-free health fair setting from April 2017 to April 2019. Methods Participants who met colorectal cancer screening eligibility criteria set forth by the United States Preventive Services Task Force were recommended to attend the colon cancer screening station. Those participants who elected to attend were offered various, accepted screening methods, and if they declined, were offered alternative blood-based testing. Screening rates, test outcomes, and the rate of follow up completion of colonoscopy were measured and compared with historic screening outcomes. Results Of 1401 participants who were recommended to attend, 640 (45.7%) participants were evaluated at the colon cancer screening station, of whom 460 were eligible for testing. Amongst these, none selected colonoscopy, 30 (6.5%) selected fecal immunochemical testing, and 430 (93.5%) selected blood-based testing. Only 2 participants returned the fecal immunochemical tests. In the blood test cohort, 88 were positive and 20 received a follow up colonoscopy. Conclusions Based on this assessment, blood-based testing is an effective method to increase screening rates in medically underserved populations, though efforts to further improve access to follow up colonoscopy are necessary.


2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 308-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Usha Menon ◽  
Laura A Szalacha ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Patricia M Herman ◽  
Julie Bucho-Gonzalez ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer screening remains suboptimal among poor and underserved people. Purpose We tested the effectiveness of a community-to-clinic navigator intervention to guide multicultural, underinsured individuals into primary care clinics to complete colorectal cancer screening. Methods This two-phase behavioral intervention study was conducted in Phoenix, Arizona (2012–2018). Community sites were randomized to group education or group education plus tailored navigation to increase attendance at primary care clinics (Phase I). Individuals who completed a clinic appointment received the tailored navigation in person or via phone (Phase II). Results In Phase I (N = 345), 37.9% of the intervention group scheduled a clinic appointment versus 19.4% of the comparison group. In Phase II, 26.5% of the original intervention group were screened versus only 10.4% of the original comparison group. Those in the intervention group were 3.84 times more likely to be screened than were those in the comparison group (odds ratio = 3.84; 95% confidence interval = 1.81–6.92). Conclusions Translation of an efficacious tailored navigation intervention for colorectal cancer screening to a community-to-clinic context is associated with significantly increased rates of colorectal cancer screening. Navigation assistance to address barriers to screening may serve as the most important component of any educational program to increase individual adherence to colorectal cancer screening.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document