Economic assessment of patient navigation to colonoscopy-based colorectal cancer screening in the real-world setting at the University of Chicago Medical Center

Patient Navigation Plus Tailored Digital Video Disc Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Low-Income and Minority Patients Who Did Not Attend a Scheduled Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Up to 50% of people scheduled for screening colonoscopy do not complete this test and no studies have focused on minority and low-income populations. Interventions are needed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, reduce barriers, and provide alternative screening options. Patient navigation (PN) and tailored interventions increase CRC screening uptake, however there is limited information comparing their effectiveness or the effect of combining them.

PURPOSE

Compare the effectiveness of two interventions to increase CRC screening among minority and low-income individuals who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointment-a mailed tailored digital video disc (DVD) alone versus the mailed DVD plus telephone-based PN compared to usual care.

METHODS

Patients (n = 371) aged 45-75 years at average risk for CRC who did not attend a screening colonoscopy appointment were enrolled and were randomized to: (i) a mailed tailored DVD; (ii) the mailed DVD plus phone-based PN; or (iii) usual care. CRC screening outcomes were from electronic medical records at 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study intervention effects.

RESULTS

Participants randomized to tailored DVD plus PN were four times more likely to complete CRC screening compared to usual care and almost two and a half times more likely than those who were sent the DVD alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining telephone-based PN with a mailed, tailored DVD increased CRC screening among low-income and minority patients who did not attend their screening colonoscopy appointments and has potential for wide dissemination.

Components and effectiveness of patient navigation programmes to increase participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality can be partly explained by unequal access to high-quality health services, including cancer screening. Several interventions have been described to increase access to cancer screening, among them patient navigation (PN), a barrier-focused intervention. This systematic review aimed to identify the reported components of PN and to assess the effectiveness of PN to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection databases. The components of PN programmes were identified, including the types of barriers addressed by navigators. The percentage change in screening participation was calculated.

RESULTS

The 44 studies included were mainly on colorectal cancer and were conducted in the USA. All described their goals and community characteristics, and the majority reported the setting (97.7%), monitoring and evaluation (97.7%), navigator background and qualifications (81.4%) and training (79.1%). Supervision was only referred to in 16 studies (36.4%). Programmes addressed mainly barriers at the educational (63.6%) and health system level (61.4%), while only 25.0% reported providing social and emotional support. PN increased cancer screening participation when compared with usual care (0.4% to 250.6% higher) and educational interventions (3.3% to 3558.0% higher).

CONCLUSION

Patient navigation programmes are effective at increasing participation to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. A standardized reporting of the components of PN programmes would allow their replication and a better measure of their impact. Understanding the local context and needs is essential to design a successful PN programme.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Evaluating the sustainability of patient navigation programs in oncology by length of existence, funding, and payment model participation

BACKGROUND

For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical-based and community-based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019.

RESULTS

Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value-added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.

Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science

Background

Economic evaluations of the implementation of health-related evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are conducted infrequently and, when performed, often use a limited set of quantitative methods to estimate the cost and effectiveness of EBIs. These studies often underestimate the resources required to implement and sustain EBIs in diverse populations and settings, in part due to inadequate scoping of EBI boundaries and underutilization of methods designed to understand the local context. We call for increased use of diverse methods, especially the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, for conducting and better using economic evaluations and related insights across all phases of implementation.

Main body

We describe methodological opportunities by implementation phase to develop more comprehensive and context-specific estimates of implementation costs and downstream impacts of EBI implementation, using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. We focus specifically on the implementation of complex interventions, which are often multi-level, resource-intensive, multicomponent, heterogeneous across sites and populations, involve many stakeholders and implementation agents, and change over time with respect to costs and outcomes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBIs as examples, we outline several approaches to specifying the “boundaries” of EBI implementation and analyzing implementation costs by phase of implementation. We describe how systems mapping and stakeholder engagement methods can be used to clarify EBI implementation costs and guide data collection—particularly important when EBIs are complex. In addition, we discuss the use of simulation modeling with sensitivity/uncertainty analyses within implementation studies for projecting the health and economic impacts of investment in EBIs. Finally, we describe how these results, enhanced by careful data visualization, can inform selection, adoption, adaptation, and sustainment of EBIs.

Conclusion

Health economists and implementation scientists alike should draw from a larger menu of methods for estimating the costs and outcomes associated with complex EBI implementation and employ these methods across the EPIS phases. Our prior experiences using qualitative and systems approaches in addition to traditional quantitative methods provided rich data for informing decision-making about the value of investing in CRC screening EBIs and long-term planning for these health programs. Future work should consider additional opportunities for mixed-method approaches to economic evaluations.

An investigation of efficient nursing interventions in early diagnosis of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Aims:

Due to the contradictory results of previous research and the lack of a specific study to address the effective nursing interventions in the early diagnosis of cancer, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nursing interventions on early diagnosis of cancer.

Methods:

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted during the last 5 years from 2015 to September 30, 2020. The articles related to the nursing interventions to early diagnosis of cancer were achieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, Scopus databases, and Google and Google Scholar search engines. Risk-ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between the intervention and control groups was determined using the fixed-effect model, and the Mantel–Haenszel method and I2 showed the heterogeneity of studies. Stata V16 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results:

The effect of an intervention on early diagnosis of breast cancer was evaluated using mammography, clinical breast examination, and breast self-exam. A total of 300 individuals participated in the study. RR results in the intervention group showed the effectiveness of nursing interventions on breast cancer detected early in both the mammography and colonoscopy (RR, 1.18 95% CI 0.57, 1.79. P =0.00 and RR, 0.58, 95% CI 0.42, 0.75, P = 0.00, respectively).

Conclusion:

A variety of nursing interventions including education, consultation, patient guidance, and reminders can have a positive impact on the early detection of cancers.

Engaging Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Economic Review

CONTEXT

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings on the basis of strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence of these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search was performed with a search period through April 2019 to identify relevant economic evaluation studies. All monetary values were adjusted to 2018 U.S. dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2019.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 19 studies were included in the final analysis with 3 on breast cancer, 5 on cervical cancer, 9 on colorectal cancer, and 2 that combined costs for breast and cervical cancers and for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. For cervical cancer screening, 2 U.S. studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year saved of $762 and $34,405. For colorectal cancer screening, 2 U.S. studies reported both a negative incremental cost and an increase in quality-adjusted life years saved with colonoscopy screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Engaging community health workers to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screenings is cost effective on the basis of estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios that were less than the conservative $50,000 per quality-adjusted life year threshold. In addition, quality-adjusted life years saved from colorectal screening with colonoscopy were associated with net healthcare cost savings.

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.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Navigation for Patients with Mental Illness and/or Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD.

METHODS

A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (n = 126) or usual care (n = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups.

RESULTS

Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (p = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

2016P001322.

Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

Improving the rate of colorectal cancer screening with the "80% in every community" campaign

ABSTRACT

Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks third in both cancer diagnoses and cancer-related deaths in men and women in the United States. Fortunately, both incidence and deaths have declined due to the increased use of CRC screening to find and remove precancerous polyps and to diagnose CRC at earlier, more treatable stages. Deaths from CRC have shifted to a new demographic, with a recent increase in incidence of 2% per year in people younger than 55 years. The American Cancer Society has issued a qualified recommendation that screening start at the age of 45 years because of this increase in early-onset CRC. There are multiple CRC screening test options. Professional organizations vary in their screening guidelines, but regardless of these differences, screening has been shown to save lives. Currently, one out of every three adults aged 50-75 years are not screened as recommended. The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (NCRCRT) has placed a high priority on screening people who remain unscreened. Nurse practitioners can improve the screening rates in outpatient clinics and health systems by adopting the campaign, "80% in Every Community," which has a goal to reduce disparities and improve screening rates in underserved and rural populations. The NCRCRT resources will help clinics and health systems reach the screening goal of 80% in every community.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program

BACKGROUND

Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community.

METHODS

The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

RESULTS

Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.