Evaluating Two Evidence-Based Intervention Strategies to Promote CRC Screening Among Latino Adults in a Primary Care Setting

A socioecological taxonomy of determinants to colorectal cancer screening in black men: Insights from a mixed-methods systematic review

Background

In the United States, African/Black American (henceforth Black) men face significantly higher mortality rates from colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to other gender, racial, and ethnic groups. Although CRC is preventable and treatable with early detection, screening rates among Black men remain low. This study aimed to synthesize existing literature on the barriers and facilitators (determinants) of CRC screening to offer guidance to primary care teams in their efforts to improve screening uptake.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive systematic review of full-text, peer-reviewed studies published in English to explore the various determinants influencing CRC screening among Black men. Using key terms like "Black or African American," "male," and "colorectal cancer screening," we searched databases including PubMed, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and Embase, published between 2009 and 2022.

Findings

The search identified 1235 articles, with 54 meeting the inclusion criteria. Most studies were cross-sectional, examining determinants across the socioecological system. Key barriers included a lack of CRC screening knowledge, poor patient-provider communication, lack of access to screening, and medical mistrust stemming from systemic racism. Significant facilitators included aging, receiving a provider recommendation, having social support, and effective culturally appropriate outreach strategies.

Conclusions

Key themes and significant findings from the review provide actionable strategies for primary care teams. These include enhancing knowledge about CRC screening within the patient population, improving patient-provider interactions, and reducing barriers to accessing screening. Future research should aim to develop culturally appropriate and collaborative preventive care strategies to improve screening adherence and CRC-related outcomes.

Community Collaboration to Advance Racial/Ethnic Equity in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Protocol for a Multilevel Intervention to Improve Screening and Follow-up in Community Health Centers

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening utilization is low among low-income, uninsured, and minority populations that receive care in community health centers (CHCs). There is a need for evidence-based interventions to increase screening and follow-up care in these settings.

METHODS

A multilevel, multi-component pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial is being conducted at 8 CHCs in two metropolitan areas (Boston and Los Angeles), with two arms: (1) Mailed FIT outreach with text reminders, and (2) Mailed FIT-DNA with patient support. We also include an additional CHC in Rapid City (South Dakota) that follows a parallel protocol for FIT-DNA but is not randomized due to lack of a comparison group. Eligible individuals in participating clinics are primary care patients ages 45-75, at average-risk for CRC, and overdue for CRC screening. Participants with abnormal screening results are offered navigation for follow-up colonoscopy and CRC risk assessment.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is the completion rate of CRC screening at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include the screening completion rate at 180 days and the rate of colonoscopy completion within 6 months among participants with an abnormal result. Additional goals are to enhance our understanding of facilitators and barriers to CRC risk assessment in CHC settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study assesses the effectiveness of two multilevel interventions to increase screening participation and follow-up after abnormal screening in under-resourced clinical settings, informing future efforts to address CRC disparities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05714644.

Improving Guideline-Recommended Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC): Implementing a Patient Navigation and Practice Facilitation Intervention to Promote Health Equity

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in the prevention and early detection of cancer. Implementing evidence-based screening guidelines remains a challenge, especially in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), where current rates (43%) are lower than national goals (80%), and even lower in populations with limited English proficiency (LEP) who experience increased barriers to care related to systemic inequities.

METHODS

This quality improvement (QI) initiative began in 2016, focused on utilizing patient navigation and practice facilitation to addressing systemic inequities and barriers to care to increase CRC screening rates at an urban FQHC, with two clinical locations (the intervention and control sites) serving a diverse population through culturally tailored education and navigation.

RESULTS

Between August 2016 and December 2018, CRC screening rates increased significantly from 31% to 59% at the intervention site (p < 0.001), with the most notable change in patients with LEP. Since 2018 through December 2022, navigation and practice facilitation expanded to all clinics, and the overall CRC screening rates continued to increase from 43% to 50%, demonstrating the effectiveness of patient navigation to address systemic inequities.

CONCLUSIONS

This multilevel intervention addressed structural inequities and barriers to care by implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice, and combining patient navigation and practice facilitation to successfully increase the CRC screening rates at this FQHC.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff

PURPOSE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program.

METHODS

We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates.

RESULTS

We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can improve health outcomes, but screening rates remain low across the US. Mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an effective way to increase CRC screening rates, but is still underutilized. In particular, cost of FIT has not been explored in relation to practice characteristics, FIT selection, and screening outreach approaches.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey drawing from prior validated measures to 252 primary care practices to assess characteristics and context that could affect the implementation of direct mail fecal testing programs, including the cost, source of test, and types of FIT used. We analyzed the range of costs for the tests, and identified practice and test procurement factors. We examined the distributions of practice characteristics for FIT use and costs answers using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We used Pearson’s chi-squared test of association and interpreted a low p-value (e.g. < 0.05) as evidence of association between a given practice characteristic and knowing the cost of FIT or fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

Results

Among the 84 viable practice survey responses, more than 10 different types of FIT/FOBTs were in use; 76% of practices used one of the five most common FIT types. Only 40 practices (48%) provided information on FIT costs. Thirteen (32%) of these practices received the tests for free while 27 (68%) paid for their tests; median reported cost of a FIT was $3.04, with a range from $0.83 to $6.41 per test. Costs were not statistically significantly different by FIT type. However, practices who received FITs from manufacturer’s vendors were more likely to know the cost (p = 0.0002) and, if known, report a higher cost (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that most practices without lab or health system supplied FITs are spending more to procure tests. Cost of FIT may impact the willingness of practices to distribute FITs through population outreach strategies, such as mailed FIT. Differences in the ability to obtain FIT tests in a cost-effective manner could have consequences for implementation of outreach programs that address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07576-4.

An observational study of workflows to support fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices serving Medicaid enrollees

Abstract

Background

Screening supports early detection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Provision of fecal immunochemical tests/fecal occult blood tests (FIT/FOBT) in primary care can increase CRC screening, particularly in populations experiencing health disparities. This study was conducted to describe clinical workflows for FIT/FOBT in Oregon primary care practices and to identify specific workflow processes that might be associated (alone or in combination) with higher (versus lower) CRC screening rates.

Methods

Primary care practices were rank ordered by CRC screening rates in Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned age 50 years from January 2013 to June 2014 (i.e., newly age-eligible). Practices were recruited via purposive sampling based on organizational characteristics and CRC screening rates. Data collected were from surveys, observation visits, and informal interviews, and used to create practice-level CRC screening workflow reports. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data analysis using an immersion-crystallization process, and a matrix analysis approach.

Results

All participating primary care practices (N=9) used visit-based workflows, and four higher performing and two lower performing used population outreach workflows to deliver FIT/FOBTs. However, higher performing practices (n=5) had more established workflows and staff to support activities. Visit-based strategies in higher performing practices included having dedicated staff identify patients due for CRC screening and training medical assistants to review FIT/FOBT instructions with patients. Population outreach strategies included having clinic staff generate lists and check them for accuracy prior to direct mailing of kits to patients. For both workflow types, higher performing clinics routinely utilized systems for patient reminders and follow-up after FIT/FOBT distribution.

Conclusions

Primary care practices with higher CRC screening rates among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees had more established visit-based and population outreach workflows to support identifying patients due for screening, FIT/FOBT distribution, reminders, and follow up. Key to practices with higher CRC screening was having medical assistants discuss and review FIT/FOBT screening and instructions with patients. Findings present important workflow processes for primary care practices and may facilitate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into real-world, clinical settings.

Adaptation of a Mailed-FIT Kit and Patient Navigation Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Among Spanish-Speaking Hispanic/Latino Patients

BACKGROUND

Hispanic/Latino populations experience significant barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. ProCRCScreen is a multicomponent CRC screening program that can help primary care clinics improve CRC screening rates, but it needs adaptation to better meet the health care needs of Spanish-speaking Hispanic/Latino populations.

METHODS

We conducted four focus groups with 22 Spanish-speaking Latino patients and used inductive qualitative content analysis to identify potential program adaptations.

RESULTS

We identified lack of social support for CRC screening and confusion about completing stool-based testing as important barriers to CRC screening. Participants recommended increased specificity of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) instructions to increase the likelihood of successful test completion, especially for first-time screening. They also endorsed patient navigation for support in completing CRC screening.

DISCUSSION

We adapted the informational materials and workflows for the ProCRCScreen program. Future research to test the adapted program is needed.

Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Digital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied.

RESULTS

Common criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

Outreach and Inreach Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Latinos at a Federally Qualified Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial, 2015-2018

Objectives. To compare usual care, inreach consisting of one-on-one education, mailed outreach offering a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and a combination of outreach and inreach for promoting colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.Methods. We conducted a 4-arm randomized controlled trial from 2015 to 2018 at a US federally qualified health center near the California-Mexico border primarily serving low-income Hispanics/Latinos. A total of 673 individuals aged 50 to 75 years not up to date with screening were assigned to 1 of the 4 intervention groups. The primary outcome was CRC screening through 6 months follow-up.Results. A total of 671 patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. Their mean age was 59.9 years, 48.9% were male, and 86.3% were primarily Spanish-speaking. Screening was 27.5% for usual care (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21, 0.34), 52.7% for inreach (95% CI = 0.45, 0.60), 77.2% for outreach (95% CI = 0.71, 0.83), and 78.9% for combination of inreach and outreach (95% CI = 0.73, 0.85; P < .001 for all comparisons except P = .793 for outreach vs combination).Conclusions. Among individuals at high risk for noncompletion, inreach with one-on-one education nearly doubled, and outreach offering mailed FIT alone or in combination with inreach nearly tripled screening compared with usual care. Mailed FIT outreach was superior to inreach for promoting screening.

Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have explored how individual- and practice-level factors influence colorectal cancer screening initiation among Medicaid enrollees newly age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (i.e., turning 50 years). This study explored colorectal cancer screening initiation among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees in Oregon.

METHODS

Medicaid claims data (January 2013 to June 2015) were used to conduct multivariable logistic regression (in 2018 and 2019) to explore individual- and practice-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening initiation among 9,032 Medicaid enrollees.

RESULTS

A total of 17% of Medicaid enrollees initiated colorectal cancer screening; of these, 64% received a colonoscopy (versus fecal testing). Colorectal cancer screening initiation was positively associated with turning 50 years in 2014 (versus 2013; OR=1.21), being Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic white; OR=1.41), urban residence (versus rural; OR=1.23), and having 4 to 7 (OR=1.90) and 8 or more (OR=2.64) primary care visits compared with 1 to 3 visits in the year after turning 50 years. Having 3 or more comorbidities was inversely associated with initiation (OR=0.75). The odds of screening initiation were also higher for practices with 3 to 4 (OR=1.26) and 8 or more (OR=1.34) providers compared with 1 to 2 providers, and negatively associated with percentage of Medicaid panel age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (OR=0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Both individual- and practice-level factors are associated with disparities in colorectal cancer screening initiation among Oregon Medicaid enrollees. Future work promoting colorectal cancer screening might focus on additional barriers to the timely initiation of colorectal cancer screening and explore the effect of practice in-reach and population outreach strategies.

A culturally and linguistically salient pilot intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Latinos receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center

Despite established benefits, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized among Latinos/Hispanics. We conducted a pilot 2-arm randomized controlled trial evaluating efficacy of two intervention conditions on CRC screening uptake among Latinos receiving care in community clinics. Participants (N = 76) were aged 50-75, most were foreign-born, preferred to receive their health information in Spanish, and not up-to-date with CRC screening. Participants were randomized to either a culturally linguistically targeted Spanish-language fotonovela booklet and DVD intervention plus fecal immunochemical test [FIT] (the LCARES, Latinos Colorectal Cancer Awareness, Research, Education and Screening intervention group); or a non-targeted intervention that included a standard Spanish-language booklet plus FIT (comparison group). Measures assessed socio-demographic variables, health literacy, CRC screening behavior, awareness and beliefs. Overall, FIT uptake was 87%, exceeding the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable's goal of 80% by 2018. The LCARES intervention group had higher FIT uptake than did the comparison group (90% versus 83%), albeit not statistically significant (P = 0.379). The LCARES intervention group was associated with greater increases in CRC awareness (P = 0.046) and susceptibility (P = 0.013). In contrast, cancer worry increased more in the comparison group (P = 0.045). Providing educational materials and a FIT kit to Spanish-language preferring Latinos receiving care in community clinics is a promising strategy to bolster CRC screening uptake to meet national targets.

Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Little information is available on the effectiveness of organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening on screening uptake, incidence, and mortality in community-based populations.

METHODS

We contrasted screening rates, age-adjusted annual CRC incidence, and incidence-based mortality rates before (baseline year 2000) and after (through 2015) implementation of organized screening outreach, from 2007 through 2008 (primarily annual fecal immunochemical testing and colonoscopy), in a large community-based population. Among screening-eligible individuals 51-75 years old, we calculated annual up-to-date status for cancer screening (by fecal test, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy), CRC incidence, cancer stage distributions, and incidence-based mortality.

RESULTS

Initiation of organized CRC screening significantly increased the up-to-date status of screening, from 38.9% in 2000 to 82.7% in 2015 (P < .01). Higher rates of screening were associated with a 25.5% reduction in annual CRC incidence between 2000 and 2015, from 95.8 to 71.4 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and a 52.4% reduction in cancer mortality, from 30.9 to 14.7 deaths/100,000 (P < .01). Increased screening was initially associated with increased CRC incidence, due largely to greater detection of early-stage cancers, followed by decreases in cancer incidence. Advanced-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 36.2%, from 45.9 to 29.3 cases/100,000 (P < .01), and early-stage CRC incidence rates decreased 14.5%, from 48.2 to 41.2 cases/100,000 (P < .04).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing an organized CRC screening program in a large community-based population rapidly increased screening participation to the ≥80% target set by national organizations. Screening rates were sustainable and associated with substantial decreases in CRC incidence and mortality within short time intervals, consistent with early detection and cancer prevention.

Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common cancer diagnosed among adults and the second leading cause of death from cancer. For this guideline update, the American Cancer Society (ACS) used an existing systematic evidence review of the CRC screening literature and microsimulation modeling analyses, including a new evaluation of the age to begin screening by race and sex and additional modeling that incorporates changes in US CRC incidence. Screening with any one of multiple options is associated with a significant reduction in CRC incidence through the detection and removal of adenomatous polyps and other precancerous lesions and with a reduction in mortality through incidence reduction and early detection of CRC. Results from modeling analyses identified efficient and model-recommendable strategies that started screening at age 45 years. The ACS Guideline Development Group applied the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria in developing and rating the recommendations. The ACS recommends that adults aged 45 years and older with an average risk of CRC undergo regular screening with either a high-sensitivity stool-based test or a structural (visual) examination, depending on patient preference and test availability. As a part of the screening process, all positive results on noncolonoscopy screening tests should be followed up with timely colonoscopy. The recommendation to begin screening at age 45 years is a qualified recommendation. The recommendation for regular screening in adults aged 50 years and older is a strong recommendation. The ACS recommends (qualified recommendations) that: 1) average-risk adults in good health with a life expectancy of more than 10 years continue CRC screening through the age of 75 years; 2) clinicians individualize CRC screening decisions for individuals aged 76 through 85 years based on patient preferences, life expectancy, health status, and prior screening history; and 3) clinicians discourage individuals older than 85 years from continuing CRC screening. The options for CRC screening are: fecal immunochemical test annually; high-sensitivity, guaiac-based fecal occult blood test annually; multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years; colonoscopy every 10 years; computed tomography colonography every 5 years; and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 years. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:250-281. © 2018 American Cancer Society.