A Scoping Review of Cancer Interventions with Arab Americans

This scoping review provides an overview of cancer interventions implemented with Arab Americans across the cancer control continuum, including an examination of outcomes and implementation processes. The search strategy included database searching and reviewing reference lists and forward citations to identify articles describing interventions with Arab adults living in the US, with no restrictions on date of publication or research methodology. The review included 23 papers describing 12 unique cancer interventions. Most interventions focused on individual-level determinants of breast and cervical cancer screening; used non-quasi-experimental research designs to evaluate intervention effectiveness; and demonstrated improvements in short-term cancer screening knowledge. Implementation processes were less commonly described. Most interventions were culturally and linguistically tailored to communities of focus; were delivered in educational sessions in community settings; engaged with the community mostly for recruitment and implementation; and were funded by foundation grants. Suggestions for research and intervention development are discussed.

Social Determinants of Health in Imaging-based Cancer Screening: A Case-based Primer with Strategies for Care Improvement

Health disparities, preventable differences in the burden of disease and disease outcomes often experienced by socially disadvantaged populations, can be found in nearly all areas of radiology, including emergency radiology, neuroradiology, nuclear medicine, image-guided interventions, and imaging-based cancer screening. Disparities in imaging-based cancer screening are especially noteworthy given the far-reaching population health impact. The social determinants of health (SDoH) play an important role in disparities in cancer screening and outcomes. Through improved understanding of how SDoH can drive differences in health outcomes in radiology, radiologists can effectively provide patient-centered, high-quality, and equitable care. Radiologists and radiology practices can become active partners in efforts to assist patients along their imaging journey and overcome existing barriers to equitable cancer screening care for traditionally marginalized populations. As radiology exists at the intersection of diagnostic imaging, image-guided diagnostic intervention, and image-guided treatment, radiologists are uniquely positioned to design these strategies. Cost-effective and socially conscious strategies that address barriers to equitable care can improve both public health and equitable health outcomes. Potential strategies include championing supportive health policy, reducing out-of-pocket costs, increasing price transparency, improving education and outreach efforts, ensuring that appropriate language translation services are available, providing individualized assistance with appointment scheduling, and offering transportation assistance and childcare. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Self-collection Intervention on Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake among Underscreened U.S. Persons with a Cervix

BACKGROUND

We evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) self-collection (followed by scheduling assistance for those who were HPV+ or inconclusive) compared with scheduling assistance only and usual care among underscreened persons with a cervix (PWAC).

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), or the cost per additional PWAC screened, from the Medicaid/state and clinic perspectives. A hypothetical cohort represented 90,807 low-income, underscreened individuals. Costs and health outcomes were derived from the MyBodyMyTest-3 randomized trial except the usual care health outcomes were derived from literature. We performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to evaluate model uncertainty.

RESULTS

Screening uptake was highest in the self-collection alternative (n = 65,721), followed by the scheduling assistance alternative (n = 34,003) and usual care (n = 18,161). The self-collection alternative costs less and was more effective than the scheduling assistance alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective. Comparing the self-collection alternative with usual care, the ICERs were $284 per additional PWAC screened from the Medicaid/state perspective and $298 per additional PWAC screened from the clinic perspective. PSAs demonstrated that the self-collection alternative was cost-effective compared with usual care at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $300 per additional PWAC screened in 66% of simulations from the Medicaid/state perspective and 58% of simulations from the clinic perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with usual care and scheduling assistance, mailing HPV self-collection kits to underscreened individuals appears to be cost-effective in increasing screening uptake.

IMPACT

This is the first analysis to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of mailed self-collection in the United States.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

Importance

Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty.

Findings

Thirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions and Relevance

Interventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

CONTEXT

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

Estimating the costs and cost-effectiveness of promoting mammography screening among US-based Latinas

PURPOSE

We characterize the costs and cost-effectiveness of a community health worker (CHW)-based intervention to promote screening mammography among US-based non-adherent Latinas.

METHODS

The parent study was a randomized controlled trial for 536 Latinas aged 42-74 years old who had sought care within a safety net health center in Western Washington. Participants were block-randomized within clinic to the control arm (usual care) or intervention arm (CHW-led motivational interviewing intervention). We used the perspective of the organization implementing promotional activities to characterize costs and cost-effectiveness. Cost data were categorized as program set-up and maintenance (initial training, booster/annual training) program implementation (administrative activities, intervention delivery); and, overhead/miscellaneous expenses. Cost-effectiveness was calculated as the incremental cost of screening for each additional woman screened between the intervention and control arms.

RESULTS

The respective costs per participant for standard care and the intervention arm were $69.96 and $300.99. There were no study arm differences in 1-year QALYs were small among women who completed a 12-month follow-up survey (intervention= 0.8827, standard care = 0.8841). Most costs pertained to program implementation and administrative activities specifically. The incremental cost per additional woman screened was $2,595.32.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings are within the ranges of costs and cost-effectiveness for other CHW programs to promote screening mammography among underserved populations. Our strong study design and focus on non-adherent women provides important strengths to this body of work, especially give implementation and dissemination science efforts regarding CHW-based health promotion for health disparity populations.