Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys

Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens

PURPOSE

Global increases in cancer, coupled with a shortage of cancer specialists, has led to an increasing role for primary care providers (PCP) in cancer care. This review aimed to examine all extant cancer curricula for PCPs and to analyze the motivations for curriculum development.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from inception to October 13, 2021, with no language restrictions. The initial search yielded 11,162 articles and 10,902 articles underwent title and abstract review. After full-text review, 139 articles were included. Numeric and thematic analyses were conducted and education programs were evaluated using Bloom's taxonomy.

RESULTS

Most curricula were developed in high-income countries (HICs), with 58% in the United States. Cancer-specific curricula focused on HIC priority cancers, such as skin/melanoma, and did not represent the global cancer burden. Most (80%) curricula were developed for staff physicians and 73% focused on cancer screening. More than half (57%) of programs were delivered in person, with a shift toward online delivery over time. Less than half (46%) of programs were codeveloped with PCPs and 34% did not involve PCPs in the program design and development. Curricula were primarily developed to improve cancer knowledge, and 72 studies assessed multiple outcome measures. No studies included the top two levels of Bloom's taxonomy of learning (evaluating; creating).

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first review to assess the current state of cancer curricula for PCPs with a global focus. This review shows that extant curricula are primarily developed in HICs, do not represent the global cancer burden, and focus on cancer screening. This review lays a foundation to advance the cocreation of curricula that are aligned to the global cancer burden.

Incidence, mortality, survival, risk factor and screening of colorectal cancer: A comparison among China, Europe, and northern America

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. China, Europe and northern America account for more than half of the new CRC cases and associated deaths globally. This review summarizes the current status and temporal trends of CRC in China, Europe, and northern America. The potential primary preventive strategies and latest advances in CRC screening techniques and programs are discussed. Recently, the incidence and mortality of CRC in some European and northern American countries have decreased; conversely, CRC incidence and mortality continue to increase in China. The overall 5-year relative survival rate for CRC is similar between these regions, but there is considerable heterogeneity among European countries. Implementing population-based CRC screening programs can effectively address the growing disease burden. The effectiveness of nationwide CRC screening programs in these regions has been limited by relatively low coverage and participation rate. The deployment of state-of-the-art techniques and precise risk-adapted screening strategies incorporating effective risk prediction models and screening techniques may boost screening effectiveness. Our review provides novel foundations for the development and optimization of CRC preventive strategies.

Healthcare professionals' behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals' implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.

METHOD

A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.

RESULTS

Eight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals' behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.

Screening Status as a Determinant of Choice of Colorectal Cancer Screening Method: A Population-Based Informed Survey

Objectives

Fecal blood testing is a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and is preferred by a substantial proportion of individuals. However, participant-related determinants of the choice of screening method, particularly up-to-date screening status, remain less studied. We aimed to determine if up-to-date screening status was related to choosing a fecal blood test over colonoscopy.

Setting

Participants in the population-based cross-sectional survey study Bus Santé in Geneva, Switzerland - aged 50-69 years.

Design

Cross-sectional survey study using mailed questionnaires inquiring about CRC screening method of choice after providing information on advantages and disadvantages of both screening methods. We used multivariable logistic regression models to determine the association between up-to-date CRC screening status and choosing fecal blood testing.

Key results

We included 1,227 participants. Thirty-eight percent of participants did not have up-to-date CRC screening. Overall, colonoscopy (54.9%) was preferred to fecal blood testing (45.1%) (p < 0.001) as screening method of choice. However, screening method choices differed between those with (65.6% colonoscopy and 34.4% fecal blood testing) and without up-to-date CRC screening (36.5% colonoscopy and 63.5% fecal blood testing). Not having up-to-date CRC screening was associated with a higher probability of choosing fecal blood testing as screening method (odds ratio = 2.6 [1.9; 3.7], p < 0.001) after adjustment for the aforementioned confounders.

Conclusions

Not having up-to-date screening was independently associated with fecal blood testing as the preferred method for CRC screening. Proposing this method to this subpopulation, in a context of shared decision, could potentially increase screening uptake in settings where it is already high.

Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.

Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems

Primary care provider's (PCP) perceptions of colorectal cancer screening test effectiveness and their recommendations for testing intervals influence patient screening uptake. Few large studies have examined providers' perceptions and recommendations, including their alignment with evidence suggesting comparable test effectiveness and guideline recommendations for screening frequency. Providers (n = 1,281) within four healthcare systems completed a survey in 2017-2018 regarding their perceptions of test effectiveness and recommended intervals for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for patients ages 40-49, 50-74, and ≥75 years. For patients 50-74 (screening eligible), 82.9% of providers rated colonoscopy as very effective versus 59.6% for FIT, and 26.3% rated colonoscopy as more effective than FIT. Also, for this age group, 77.9% recommended colonoscopy every 10 years and 92.4% recommended FIT annually. For patients ages 40-49 and ≥75, more than one-third of providers believed the tests were somewhat or very effective, although >80% did not routinely recommend screening by either test for these age groups. Provider screening test interval recommendations generally aligned with colorectal cancer guidelines; however, 25% of providers believed colonoscopy was more effective than FIT for mortality reduction, which differs from some modeling studies that suggest comparable effectiveness. The latter finding may have implications for health systems where FIT is the dominant screening strategy. Only one-third of providers reported believing these screening tests were effective in younger and older patients (i.e., <50 and ≥75 years). Evidence addressing these beliefs may be relevant if cancer screening recommendations are modified to include older and/or younger patients.

Physician-office vs home uptake of colorectal cancer screening using FOBT/FIT among screening-eligible US adults

Background

Guidelines of the American Cancer Society and US Preventive Services Task Force specify that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using guaiac‐based fecal occult blood test (FOBT)/fecal immunochemical test (FIT) should be done at home. We therefore examined the prevalence and correlates of CRC screening using FOBT/FIT in physicians' office vs at home.

Methods

Analysis of 9493 respondents 50‐75 years old from the Cancer Control Supplement of the 2015 National Health Interview Survey was conducted. Weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of in‐office vs home use of FOBT/FIT for CRC screening.

Results

Of the overall sample of screening‐eligible adults (n = 9403), only 937 (10.4%) respondents underwent CRC screening using FOBT/FIT within the past year; among this screening population, 279 (28.3%) respondents were screened in‐office. We found that sociodemographic factors alone, not CRC risk factors, determined whether FOBT/FIT would be used in‐office or at home. Hispanics had greater odds of being screened in‐office using FOBT/FIT (aOR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.05‐3.99). Compared with those 50‐59 years old, respondents 70‐75 years old were less likely to be screened in‐office using FOBT/FIT (aOR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.25‐0.79). Similarly, individuals residing in the Western region of the country had lower odds of in‐office FOBT/FIT (aOR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.11‐0.58).

Conclusion

Amid low overall uptake rates of FOBT/FIT in the United States, in‐physician office testing is high, indicative of a missed opportunity for effective screening and poor adherence of physicians to national guidelines. Sociodemographic factors are determinants of uptake of FOBT/FIT at home or in‐office and should be considered in designing interventions aimed at providers and the general population.

Amid low overall uptake rates of FOBT/FIT in the United States, in‐physician office testing is high, indicative of a missed opportunity for effective screening and poor adherence of physicians to national guidelines.

Offering patients a choice for colorectal cancer screening: a quality improvement pilot study in a quality circle of primary care physicians

Background

Guidelines recommend primary care physicians (PCPs) offer patients a choice between colonoscopy and faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients choose almost evenly between both tests but in Switzerland, most are tested with colonoscopy while screening rates are low. A quality circle (QC) of PCPs is an ideal site to train physicians in shared decision-making (SDM) that will help more patients decide if they want to be tested and choose the test they prefer.

Objective

Systematically assess CRC screening status of eligible 50–75 y.o. patients and through SDM increase the proportion of patients who have the opportunity to choose CRC screening and the test (FIT or colonoscopy).

Methods

Working through four Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles in their QC, PCPs adapted tools for SDM and surmounted organisational barriers by involving practice assistants. Each PCP included 20, then 40 consecutive 50–75 y.o. patients, repeatedly reported CRC status as well as the proportion of eligible patients with whom CRC screening could be discussed and patients’ decisions.

Results

9 PCPs initially included 176, then 320 patients. CRC screening status was routinely noted in the electronic medical record and CRC screening was implemented in daily routine, increasing eligible patients’ chance to be offered screening. Over a year, screening rates trended upwards, from 37% to 40% (p=0.46) and FIT use increased (2%–7%, p=0.008). Initially, 7/9 PCPs had no patient ever tested with FIT; after the intervention, only 2/8 recorded no FIT tests.

Conclusions

Through data-driven PDSA cycles and significant organisational changes, PCPs of a QC systematically collected data on CRC screening status and implemented SDM tools in their daily routine. This increased patients’ chance to discuss CRC screening. The more balanced use of FIT and colonoscopy suggests that patients’ values and preferences were better respected.

A provider feedback intervention to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening in a Swiss academic general practice

Colorectal cancer (CRC) cancer screening uptake is low in our diverse, outpatient teaching clinic. A state-level public screening programme was recently launched that provides faecal immunochemical tests or screening colonoscopy to all citizens aged 50-69 years via mailed invitations, with the possibility of earlier, opportunistic inclusion. Mailed outreach is expected to be rolled out over the next 5 years. In the interim, we aimed to increase CRC screening by accelerating the inclusion of patients into the programme by implementing a provider feedback programme with residents. We used billing reports to define the eligible target population and monthly lists of included patients to track progress. All residents received a standard intervention that provided basic training and communication tools facilitating shared decision making in CRC screening decisions. We then developed and implemented the intervention over 3 Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles in 2 of 4 groups of residents, each with 7 residents and approximately 250 eligible patients. The intervention consisted of individualised reports on the proportion of each resident's patients that had been included in the screening programme and the names of patients who had not yet been included. The first group that received the intervention had included 58 of 232 eligible patients (25%) at 8 months after the feedback intervention and the second group 51 of 249 eligible patients (20%) at 4 months. In comparison, the 2 groups with only the standard intervention had included 32 of 252 (13%) and 27 of 260 (10%) of their patients, respectively, at 11 months after the baseline intervention. These results suggest that provider feedback to medical residents can promote resident self-awareness and increase the proportion of patients included in a public programme when provided in addition to educational interventions.

Personalized cancer screening: helping primary care rise to the challenge

With their longitudinal patient relationships, primary care physicians and their care teams are uniquely situated to promote preventive medicine, including cancer screening. A confluence of forces is driving the demand for the personalization of cancer screening recommendations. Recommendations are increasingly based on individual patient preferences, medical history, genetic and environmental risk factors, and level of interaction with the healthcare system. Current examples include choices between colonoscopy, fecal testing, and emerging tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening; the use of genetic information and availability of home self-testing in cervical cancer screening; the integration of multiple risk factors and patient preferences to decide the intensity and length of breast cancer screening; and the issues of smoking cessation and competing priorities when deciding whether or not to pursue lung cancer screening. These changes will inevitably increase the burden on primary care of providing high-quality cancer screening to their patients. To address, primary care physicians need access to continuously updated evidence reviews including prioritization of strongly supported recommendations, training in shared decision-making and tools for preference diagnosis, and an electronic health record (EHR) and reimbursement model that allow for population health management and team-based care. Only by reinforcing cancer screening in primary care can we ensure that personalized cancer screening is accessible and evidence-based.

Screening for colorectal cancer: the role of the primary care physician

In recent years, the role of primary care physicians (PCPs) in the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal disorders, including screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recognized as very important. The available data indicate that PCPs are not adequately following CRC screening guidelines because a number of factors have been identified as significant barriers to the proper application of CRC screening guidelines. These factors include lack of time, patient reluctance, and challenges related to scheduling colonoscopy. Further positive engagement of PCPs with CRC screening is required to overcome these barriers and reach acceptable levels in screening rates. To meet the expectations of modern medicine, PCPs should not only be able to recommend occult blood testing or colonoscopy but also, under certain conditions, able to perform colonoscopy. In this review, the authors aim to provide the current knowledge of the role of PCPs in increasing the rate and successfully implementing a screening program for CRC by applying the relevant international guidelines.