Development of a multilevel intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in Appalachia

Temporal trends in early-onset colorectal cancer incidence (2000-2020) by age group and five geographic regions in the state of Georgia

The increase of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) among younger adults is a major public health concern. However, little is known about variations in CRC incidence across different age groups within small geographic areas in Georgia. We examined temporal trends of CRC incidence in Clayton, East Central, West Central, Northeast, and Southeast regions, by age groups. Annual incidence rates for CRC in individuals aged 15+ years during 2000-2020 in the five regions of Georgia were included. Temporal trends were examined within the five regions and stratified by age group. Joinpoint regression was employed to calculate the annual percent change and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Among 20,215 CRC diagnoses, CRC incidence declined over time for East Central (-2.33%; 95% CI, -3.03, -1.64), Northeast (-1.63%; 95% CI, -2.15, -1.04), Southeast (-1.63%; 95% CI, -2.30, -0.96), and West Central (-1.53%; 95% CI, -2.04, -1.03) Georgia. In the 15-44 age group, a notable increase of CRC incidence was found in Clayton, Northeast, and Southeast regions with a range of 2.2%-3.4%. However, adults aged 60+ years experienced a significant decrease in CRC incidence for most Georgia regions (all p-value <0.05), except for the Clayton region. In conclusion, CRC incidence declined during 2000-2020 in most Georgia regions. However, early-onset CRC is a major concern in Georgia as young adults (<45 years) living in Clayton, Northeast, and Southeast Georgia experienced significant annual increases in CRC incidence. Targeted CRC screening and awareness campaigns should be prioritized for adults <45 years and in the most impacted areas in Georgia.

Video brochures in a mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach program provide cancer screening information in a user-friendly format for rural Appalachian community members

PURPOSE

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for average-risk adults, yet many adults are not up-to-date with screening. One recommended CRC screening approach is the annual completion of a fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, usually, fewer than half of mailed FIT tests are returned.

METHODS

To address barriers to FIT return, a video brochure was developed providing targeted CRC screening information and step-by-step FIT instructions as a component in a mailed FIT program. This pilot study occurred in 2021-2022 and partnered with a federally qualified health center in Appalachian Ohio to send a FIT to patients who were 50-64 years old, of average risk, and not up-to-date on CRC screening. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups that differed on materials sent with the FIT: usual care (manufacturer's instructions), a video brochure (video instructions, disposable gloves, disposable stool collection device), or an audio brochure (audio instructions, disposable gloves, disposable stool collection device).

FINDINGS

Overall, 16 of 94 patients (17%) returned the FIT, and return was higher among those sent the video brochure (28%) compared to the other 2 groups (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.02, 9.2; P = .046). Two patients had positive tests and were referred for colonoscopy. Patients sent the video brochure reported the content was important, relevant, and made them think about completing the FIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a video brochure to provide understandable information in a mailed FIT kit is a promising strategy to improve CRC screening outreach programs in rural regions.

Assessing and Addressing the Determinants of Appalachian Population Health: A Scoping Review

Introduction

Residents of Appalachia experience elevated rates of morbidity and mortality compared to national averages, and these disparities are associated with inequitable exposures to various determinants of population health. Social and environmental determinants of health are a useful lens through which to develop and evaluate programs to mitigate regional health disparities.

Methods

This 2023 scoping review was conducted of studies linking determinants of Appalachian health with leading causes of regional mortality and morbidity. The search strategy employed a keyword search that included geographic terms for the Appalachian Region and the primary adverse health outcomes in that region. Studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: original article, published in the last five years, involving an Appalachian population, and includes a rigorous assessment of an association between a population health determinant and one or more leading causes of Appalachian morbidity and mortality.

Results

The search returned 221 research articles, including 30 interventional studies. The top three health outcomes included cancer (43.59%), diseases of despair (23.08%), and diabetes (12.82). Access to care (27.3%), rurality (18.9%), and education (14.8%) were the most common population health determinants identified. Interventional studies were categorized by program types: education, technology, partnerships, and multilevel interventions. Due to the heterogeneity of study types, the studies were combined using a narrative synthesis.

Implications

The results of this work can inform the development and evaluation of additional programs to promote Appalachian population health. Our study team will use these results to inform community-based discussions that develop strategic plans to mitigate health disparities in Central and Southcentral Appalachian Virginia.

Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco

PURPOSE

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening.

METHODS

Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.

Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) in Appalachia: protocol for a group randomized, delayed intervention trial

Appalachian regions of Kentucky and Ohio are hotspots for colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in the USA. Screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality; however, screening uptake is needed, especially in these underserved geographic areas. Implementation science offers strategies to address this challenge. The aim of the current study was to conduct multi-site, transdisciplinary research to evaluate and improve CRC screening processes using implementation science strategies. The study consists of two phases (Planning and Implementation). In the Planning Phase, a multilevel assessment of 12 health centers (HC) (one HC from each of the 12 Appalachian counties) was conducted by interviewing key informants, creating community profiles, identifying HC and community champions, and performing HC data inventories. Two designated pilot HCs chose CRC evidence-based interventions to adapt and implement at each level (i.e., patient, provider, HC, and community) with evaluation relative to two matched control HCs. During the Implementation Phase, study staff will repeat the rollout process in HC and community settings in a randomized, staggered fashion in the remaining eight counties/HCs. Evaluation will include analyses of electronic health record data and provider and county surveys. Rural HCs have been reluctant to participate in research because of concerns about capacity; however, this project should demonstrate that research does not need to be burdensome and can adapt to local needs and HC abilities. If effective, this approach could be disseminated to HC and community partners throughout Appalachia to encourage the uptake of effective interventions to reduce the burden of CRC.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative

BACKGROUND

Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative.

METHODS

We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation.

RESULTS

ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.

Cross-sectional survey study of primary care clinics on evidence-based colorectal cancer screening intervention use

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine differences between urban and rural primary care clinics in the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening methods and evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey of primary care clinics in Nebraska. Surveys in paper form were sent out and followed up with telephone interviews to nonrespondents. Of the 375 facilities, 263 (70.1%) responded to the survey.

FINDINGS

Over 30% of urban clinics indicated that 80% or more of their patients were meeting the CRC guidelines compared to 18.3% of rural clinics (P = .03). Rural clinics were more likely than urban clinics to prefer the use of colonoscopy alone or in combination with stool tests (P = .02). The most common interventions for CRC screening included one-on-one patient education and use of computer-based pop-ups to remind providers.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we found some important differences between rural and urban primary care clinics in the implementation of CRC screening. Given that there is evidence for differences in preference for CRC screening methods (colonoscopy vs stool-based tests) between rural and urban community members, it is important to assess the effectiveness of different types of CRC screening interventions by comparing rural and urban primary care clinic patient populations.

The Rural Household Production of Health Approach: Applying Lessons from Zambia to Rural Cancer Disparities in the U.S

The recent focus on rural-urban cancer disparities in the United States (U.S.) requires a comprehensive understanding of the processes and relations that influence cancer care seeking and decision making. This is of particular importance for Black, Latino, and Native populations living in rural areas in the U.S., who remain marginalized in health care spaces. In this article, we describe the household production of health approach (HHPH) as a contextually-sensitive approach to examining health care seeking and treatment decisions and actions. The HHPH approach is based on several decades of research and grounded in anthropological theory on the household, gender, and therapy management. This approach directs analytical attention to how time, money, and social resources are secured and allocated within the household, sometimes in highly unequal ways that reflect and refract broader social structures. To demonstrate the benefits of such an approach to the study of cancer in rural populations in the U.S., we take lessons from our extensive HHPH research in Zambia. Using a case study of a rural household, in which household members had to seek care in a distant urban hospital, we map out what we call a rural HHPH approach to bring into focus the relations, negotiations, and interactions that are central to individual and familial health care seeking behaviors and clinical treatment particular to rural regions. Our aim is to show how such an approach might offer alternative interpretations of existing rural cancer research in the U.S. and also present new avenues for questions and for developing interventions that are more sensitive to people's realities.