Patient preferences and adherence to colorectal cancer screening in an urban population

Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) and Focus Groups: Tailoring Bilingual Cancer Screening Education

Virtual focus groups were conducted in English and in French to gather community feedback on colorectal cancer screening education materials, designed for use among immigrant and non-immigrant Black/African-American men in New York City. Participants were recruited from community health fair events, religious and cultural organizations, and an existing Community Advisory Board. Six total focus groups were conducted, four in English and two in French, with a total of 25 participants, until data saturation. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, two were translated from French into English, and analyzed in NVivo software to develop and consolidate themes in participant responses. Focus groups revealed key knowledge gaps about colorectal cancer screening protocols and cancer risk heritability. Discussing racial health disparities may cause offense to some readers. Participants were interested to see root causes for racial health disparities discussed in health promotion material. Virtual focus groups can be used to gather community member feedback on health promotion materials. Real-time simultaneous language interpreting can be used if facilitator and audience do not speak the same language. Health educators should be mindful that the recommended screening age of 45 years for colorectal cancer is not generally known, and that individuals may believe that cancer is contagious. Readers may be offended by references to health disparities. Health educators should test health promotion materials with target audiences to ensure appropriateness and cultural sensitivity.

Sociodemographic Factors and Screening CT Colonography Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND. Approximately one-third of the eligible U.S. population have not undergone guideline-compliant colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Guidelines recognize various screening strategies to increase adherence. CMS provides coverage for all recommended screening tests except CT colonography (CTC). OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CTC and other CRC screening tests in terms of associations of utilization with income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. METHODS. This retrospective study used CMS Research Identifiable Files from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020. These files contain claims information for 5% of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data were extracted for individuals 45-85 years old, and individuals with high CRC risk were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to determine the likelihood of undergoing CRC screening tests (as well as of undergoing diagnostic CTC, a CMS-covered test with similar physical access as screening CTC) as a function of income, race and ethnicity, and urbanicity while controlling for sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, U.S. census region, screening year, and related conditions and procedures. RESULTS. For 12,273,363 beneficiary years (mean age, 70.5 ± 8.2 [SD] years; 2,436,849 unique beneficiaries: 6,774,837 female beneficiaries, 5,498,526 male beneficiaries), there were 785,103 CRC screenings events, including 645 for screening CTC. Compared with individuals living in communities with per capita income of less than US$25,000, individuals in communities with income of US$100,000 or more had OR for undergoing screening CTC of 5.73, optical colonoscopy (OC) of 1.36, sigmoidoscopy of 1.03, guaiac fecal occult blood test or fecal immunochemical test of 1.50, stool DNA of 1.43, and diagnostic CTC of 2.00. The OR for undergoing screening CTC was 1.00 for Hispanic individuals and 1.08 for non-Hispanic Black individuals compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Compared with the OR for undergoing screening CTC for residents of metropolitan areas, the OR was 0.51 for residents of micropolitan areas and 0.65 for residents of small or rural areas. CONCLUSION. The association with income was substantially larger for screening CTC than for other CRC screening tests or for diagnostic CTC. CLINICAL IMPACT. Medicare's noncoverage for screening CTC may contribute to lower adherence with CRC screening guidelines for lower-income beneficiaries. Medicare coverage of CTC could reduce income-based disparities for individuals avoiding OC owing to invasiveness, need for anesthesia, or complication risk.

FIT for purpose: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial to personalize surveillance colonoscopy for individuals at elevated risk of colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

There is increasing demand for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, but healthcare capacity is limited. The burden on colonoscopy resources could be reduced by personalizing surveillance frequency using the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). This study will determine the safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient acceptance of using FIT to extend surveillance colonoscopy intervals for individuals at elevated risk of CRC.

METHODS

This multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial will invite participants who are scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy (due to a personal history of adenomas or a family history of CRC) and who have returned a low fecal hemoglobin (< 2 μg Hb/g feces; F-Hb) using a two-sample FIT (OC Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) in the prior 3 years. A total of 1344 individuals will be randomized to either surveillance colonoscopy as scheduled or delayed by 1 or 2 years for individuals originally recommended a 3- or 5-year surveillance interval, respectively. The primary endpoint is incidence of advanced neoplasia (advanced adenoma and/or CRC). Secondary endpoints include cost-effectiveness and consumer acceptability of extending surveillance intervals, determined using surveys and discrete choice experiments.

CONCLUSION

This study will establish the safety, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of utilizing a low FIT Hb result to extend colonoscopy surveillance intervals in a cohort at elevated risk for CRC. This personalized approach to CRC surveillance will lead to a reduction in unnecessary colonoscopies, increases in healthcare savings, and a better patient experience.  TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration was approved on December 9, 2019 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTR 12619001743156.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve three-year adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in rural community health centers

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, yet significant disparities persist among those living in rural areas, from minority backgrounds, and those having low income. The purpose of this two-arm randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness and fidelity of a stepped care (increasing intensity as needed) approach to promoting 3-year adherence to CRC screening via fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy in rural community clinics serving high rates of low-income and minority patients. We hypothesize that, compared to enhanced usual care (EUC), patients receiving the multifaceted CRC screening intervention will demonstrate higher rates of CRC screening completion over 3 years. Participants from six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs; N = 1200 patients) serving predominately low-income populations in rural Louisiana will be randomized to the intervention or EUC arm. All participants will receive health literacy-directed CRC counseling, simplified materials about both the FIT and colonoscopy procedures, and motivational interviewing to aid in the determination of test preference. Participants in the intervention arm will also receive motivational reminder messages from their primary care provider (via audio recording or tailored text) for either a scheduled colonoscopy or return of a completed FIT. Participants in the EUC arm will receive the standard follow-up provided by their clinic or colonoscopy facility. The primary outcome will be completion of either colonoscopy or annual FIT over 3 years. Results will provide evidence on the effectiveness of the intervention to decrease disparities in CRC screening completion related to health literacy, race, and gender. Trial registration:Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT04313114.

Inulin as a Delivery Vehicle for Targeting Colon-Specific Cancer

Natural polysaccharides, as well as biopolymers, are now days widely developed for targeting colon cancer using various drug delivery systems. Currently, healing conformations are being explored that can efficiently play a multipurpose role. Owing to the capability of extravagance colonic diseases with the least adverse effects, biopolymers for site specific colon delivery have developed an increased curiosity over the past decades. Inulin (INU) was explored for its probable application as an entrapment material concerning its degradation by enzymes in the colonic microflora and its drug release behavior in a sustained and controlled manner. INU is a polysaccharide and it consists of 2 to 1 linkage having an extensive array of beneficial uses such as a carrier for delivery of therapeutic agents as an indicative/investigative utensil or as a dietary fiber with added well-being aids. In the main, limited research, as well as information, is available on the delivery of therapeutic agents using inulin specifically for colon cancer because of its capability to subsist in the stomach's acidic medium. This exceptional steadiness and robustness properties are exploited in numerous patterns to target drugs securely for the management of colonic cancer, where they effectively act and kills colonic tumor cells easily. In this review article, recent efforts and inulin-based nano-technological approaches for colon cancer targeting are presented and discussed.

[Definition of the quality of hand surgery]

The quality of treatment within the total concept of the healthcare system is subject to multifactorial influences. With the intention to improve the quality of hand surgery the German Society for Hand Surgery (DGH) has initiated a number of projects. These include the S3 guidelines codeveloped by the DGH, the hand trauma register of the DGH, the definition of criteria for hand surgical procedures to be performed in an outpatient setting within the framework of a consensus recommendation as well as participation in a large epidemiological study with the special documentation of pathological alterations of the hand to determine the prevalences (study of health in Pomerania, SHIP); however, within these projects the quality of treatment itself is not assessed. In the attempt to document the quality, the currently available quality indicators in hand surgery probably only evaluate the aspects really relevant for the patients to a limited extent. Therefore, the DGH participated at an early stage in the development of assessments within the international study named by the WHO as a lighthouse project. These developed and validated assessments are intended to include all aspects of the results including the individual patient view in order to precisely relate the quality of treatment to an exactly defined pattern of hand injury. The use of these assessments should permanently enable a prediction of outcome quality for each individual patient. All these projects require the largest involvement possible to collect as much data as possible. With this intention the DGH further coordinates and develops these projects within the committees of the extended executive board and attempts to motivate as many surgeons as possible to participate.

Preferences of Iranian average risk population for colorectal cancer screening tests

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to explore the preferences of the average risk Iranian population for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

A standard stated-preferences method with discrete choice models was used to identify the preferences. Data about socio-demographic status, health status and preferences for CRC screening tests were collected by a structured questionnaire that was completed by 500 people aged 50-75 years. Mixed logit model was used to analyze the preferences.

FINDINGS

The regression model showed that the test process, pain, place, frequency, preparation, sensitivity, complication risk, mortality rate and cost were the final attributes; that had a statistically significant correlation with the preferences of the people in choosing CRC screening tests. The socio-demographic and health status of participants had no significant correlation with the individuals' preferences.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study provides insight into how different characteristics of a CRC screening test might influence the preferences of individuals about that test.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

This was the first study of this type in Iran to elicit the preferences of the average risk population for CRC screening tests using a discrete choice model.

Colorectal carcinoma screening: Established methods and emerging technology

Colorectal carcinoma screening programs have shown success in lowering both the incidence and mortality rate of colorectal carcinoma at a population level, in part because this carcinoma is relatively slow growing and has an identifiable premalignant lesion. Still, many patients do not undergo the recommended screening for colorectal carcinoma, and of those who do, a subset may be over- or under-diagnosed by the currently available testing methods. The primary purpose of this article is to review the data regarding currently available colorectal cancer screening modalities, which include fecal occult blood testing, direct colonic visualization, and noninvasive imaging techniques. In addition, readers will be introduced to a variety of biomarkers that may serve as stand-alone or adjunct tests in the future. Finally, there is a brief discussion of the current epidemiologic considerations that public health officials must address as they create population screening guidelines. The data we provide as laboratory physicians and scientists are critical to the construction of appropriate recommendations that ultimately decrease the burden of disease from colorectal carcinoma.

Patient and caregiver perspectives on guideline adherence: the case of endocrine and bone health recommendations for Duchenne muscular dystrophy

BACKGROUND

Clinical care guidelines are typically developed by clinicians and researchers. Including patient and caregiver voices in guideline development may help create guidelines that are more useful for patients and consequently improve their guideline adherence. Although there is substantial research on the factors the affect providers' adherence to guidelines, there is less research on the factors that affect patients' compliance with guideline recommendations, especially among those with rare disorders. The purpose of this study is to explore factors that are likely to affect patient/caregiver adherence to endocrine and bone health recommendations for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). To do so, we used qualitative data collected as part of the study designed to develop, implement, and evaluate a new online, modified-Delphi approach to engaging patients with rare diseases and their caregivers in guideline development, using care guidelines for DMD as a case study.

METHODS

We thematically analyzed qualitative data collected from 95 adults with DMD and their caregivers who participated in at least one round of our online Modified-Delphi panel process. Participants rated and commented on the patient-centeredness of 19 recommendations about vertical growth, weight management, bone health, and delayed puberty included in the 2018 DMD care considerations. Patient-centeredness was operationalized as the importance and acceptability of care recommendations.

RESULTS

Thematic analyses revealed six factors that affect guideline adherence from the patient/caregiver perspective: content and format of recommendations, patient and provider characteristics, and social and financial factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study used a novel approach to exploring patient and caregiver perspectives on factors that may affect guideline adherence. The six factors identified by DMD patients and caregivers are similar to the factors affecting provider adherence and are not limited to DMD. Understanding consistency between provider- and patient/caregiver-identified barriers to following guideline recommendations can lead to developing more successful interventions for increasing guideline adherence.

Implementing a small media intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening in primary care clinics

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in the USA. In 2017, an estimated 135,420 people were diagnosed with CRC and 50,260 people died from CRC. Several screening modalities are recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), including annual stool tests that are usually completed at home and under-used compared with colonoscopy despite stated patient preferences for an alternative to colonoscopy. The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends use of small media interventions (SMIs) to increase CRC screening and calls for a greater understanding of its independent impact on screening participation. This study tested whether a SMI increased the likelihood of participant return of a USPSTF recommended Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT). In total, 804 individuals participated in a two-group, prospective randomized controlled trial. Descriptive statistics with chi-square tests compared differences in participant characteristics and return rates. Multivariable log-binomial modeling estimated combined effects of patient characteristics with FIT return rates. No differences in return rates were observed overall or by participant characteristics other than the year of enrollment. A multivariable model controlling for all covariates, found gender, insurance type, and regular place for healthcare to be significantly associated with return rates. Receipt of the SMI did not independently increase overall return rates but it may have improved the ease of completing the FIT by some participants, particularly women, those with insurance, and those with a regular place for healthcare.

Defining Quality in Hand Surgery From the Patient's Perspective: A Qualitative Analysis

PURPOSE

Quality measures are used to evaluate health care delivery. They are traditionally developed from the physician and health system viewpoint. This approach can lead to quality measures that promote care that may be misaligned with patient values and preferences. We completed an exploratory, qualitative study to identify how patients with hand problems define high-quality care. Our purpose was to develop a better understanding of the surgery and recovery experience of hand surgery patients, specifically focusing on knowledge gaps, experience, and the surgical process.

METHODS

A steering committee (n = 10) of patients who had previously undergone hand surgery reviewed and revised an open-ended survey. Ninety-nine patients who had undergone hand surgery at 2 tertiary care institutions completed the open-ended, structured questionnaire during their 6- to 8-week postoperative clinic visit. Two reviewers completed a thematic analysis to generate subcodes and codes to identify themes in high-quality care from the patient's perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 4 themes of high-quality care: (1) Being prepared and informed for the process of surgery, (2) Regaining hand function without pain or complication, (3) Patients and caregivers negotiating the physical and psychological challenges of recovery, and (4) Financial and logistical burdens of undergoing hand surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple areas that patients identify as representing high-quality care are not reflected in current quality measures for hand surgery. The patient-derived themes of high-quality care can inform future patient-centered quality measure development.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Efforts to improve health care delivery may have the greatest impact by addressing areas of care that are most valued by patients. Such areas include patient education, system navigation, the recovery process, and cost.

Faecal immunochemical tests versus colonoscopy for post-polypectomy surveillance: an accuracy, acceptability and economic study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, patients with one or two adenomas, of which at least one is ≥ 10 mm in size, or three or four small adenomas, are deemed to be at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and referred for surveillance colonoscopy 3 years post polypectomy. However, colonoscopy is costly, can cause discomfort and carries a small risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether or not annual faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are effective, acceptable and cost saving compared with colonoscopy surveillance for detecting CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs).

DESIGN

Diagnostic accuracy study with health psychology assessment and economic evaluation.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 30 January 2012 to 30 December 2013 within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Men and women, aged 60-72 years, deemed to be at intermediate risk of CRC following adenoma removal after a positive guaiac faecal occult blood test were invited to participate. Invitees who consented and returned an analysable FIT were included.

INTERVENTION

We offered participants quantitative FITs at 1, 2 and 3 years post polypectomy. Participants testing positive with any FIT were referred for colonoscopy and not offered further FITs. Participants testing negative were offered colonoscopy at 3 years post polypectomy. Acceptibility of FIT was assessed using discussion groups, questionnaires and interviews.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 3-year sensitivity of an annual FIT versus colonoscopy at 3 years for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) (CRC and/or AA). Secondary outcomes included participants' surveillance preferences, and the incremental costs and cost-effectiveness of FIT versus colonoscopy surveillance.

RESULTS

Of 8008 invitees, 5946 (74.3%) consented and returned a round 1 FIT. FIT uptake in rounds 2 and 3 was 97.2% and 96.9%, respectively. With a threshold of 40 µg of haemoglobin (Hb)/g faeces (hereafter referred to as µg/g), positivity was 5.8% in round 1, declining to 4.1% in round 3. Over three rounds, 69.2% (18/26) of participants with CRC, 34.3% (152/443) with AAs and 35.6% (165/463) with ACN tested positive at 40 µg/g. Sensitivity for CRC and AAs increased, whereas specificity decreased, with lower thresholds and multiple rounds. At 40 µg/g, sensitivity and specificity of the first FIT for CRC were 30.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The programme sensitivity and specificity of three rounds at 10 µg/g were 84.6% and 70.8%, respectively. Participants' preferred surveillance strategy was 3-yearly colonoscopy plus annual FITs (57.9%), followed by annual FITs with colonoscopy in positive cases (31.5%). FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases was cheaper than 3-yearly colonoscopy (£2,633,382), varying from £485,236 (40 µg/g) to £956,602 (10 µg/g). Over 3 years, FIT surveillance could miss 291 AAs and eight CRCs using a threshold of 40 µg/g, or 189 AAs and four CRCs using a threshold of 10 µg/g.

CONCLUSIONS

Annual low-threshold FIT with colonoscopy in positive cases achieved high sensitivity for CRC and would be cost saving compared with 3-yearly colonoscopy. However, at higher thresholds, this strategy could miss 15-30% of CRCs and 40-70% of AAs. Most participants preferred annual FITs plus 3-yearly colonoscopy. Further research is needed to define a clear role for FITs in surveillance.

FUTURE WORK

Evaluate the impact of ACN missed by FITs on quality-adjusted life-years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18040196.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Bobby Moore Fund for Cancer Research UK. MAST Group Ltd provided FIT kits.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients

BACKGROUND

Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics.

METHODS

We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions.

RESULTS

Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI.

IMPACT

Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Preferences among Black and Latino Primary Care Patients

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the U.S. have historically been lower among blacks and Latinos than whites. The advent of a new stool-based test, Cologuard, calls for research to determine which CRC screening test minority individuals might prefer. Ninety black and Latino patients who had undergone screening colonoscopy were personally educated about four CRC screening tests and subsequently asked about their test preference, attributes that influenced preference, and strength of preference. Cologuard (31.1 %) and colonoscopy (64.4 %) were preferred over computerized tomographic colonography and fecal immunochemical tests. Preference was influenced by distinct test attributes. Individuals who selected Cologuard over colonoscopy were more likely to be >60 and have greater strength of test preference. There was an overriding preference for Cologuard and colonoscopy among black and Latino individuals who had undergone screening colonoscopy. To further improve CRC screening in these populations, patient preferences should guide recommendations.

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.

Patients' Preferences for Primary Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Survey of the National Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Korea

Background/Aims

The adoption of colonoscopy as a primary colorectal cancer (CRC) screening technique has been argued for in Korea, without evidence of patient preferences. This study aimed to investigate patients’ preferences for the primary CRC screening test for the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP).

Methods

Between June and August 2016, 414 individuals aged ≥50 years who participated in the NCSP were prospectively invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their preferences for the primary CRC screening test and the reasons for their selection.

Results

Among the 396 respondents who completed the questionnaire, 124 individuals (31.3%) preferred the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), whereas 272 individuals (68.7%) preferred colonoscopy. Elderly participants preferred the FIT (p<0.001), whereas participants with a higher education level (p=0.030), a higher income level (p=0.009), or individuals with a family member (p=0.028) or acquaintance (p=0.013) with a history of CRC preferred colonoscopy. Only 12.9% of participants had a bad experience with a previous FIT; however, 39.3% of participants had a bad experience with a previous colonoscopy.

Conclusions

Colonoscopy was preferred to FIT in a 2.2:1 ratio as the primary CRC screening test for the NCSP. Patients’ preference for colonoscopy should be considered for the NCSP in Korea.

Patient Test Preference for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Screening Uptake in an Insured Urban Minority Population

The study examines the role of patient colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and CRC screening uptake in an insured, urban minority population. Study subjects were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial to promote CRC screening. The interventions were educational, with an emphasis on colonoscopy screening. Subjects were 50+ years of age, fully insured for CRC screening, and out of compliance with current CRC screening recommendations. This paper includes those who answered a question about CRC screening test preference and indicated that they intended to receive such a test in the coming year (n = 453). CRC screening uptake was ascertained from medical claims data. Regardless of test preference, few received CRC screening (22.3 %). Those preferring the home stool test (HST) were less likely to get tested than those preferring a colonoscopy (16.6 vs 29.9 %, χ(2) = 9.9, p = .002). Preference for HST was more strongly associated with beliefs about colonoscopy than with knowledge about colonoscopy. In the context of an RCT emphasizing colonoscopy screening for CRC, patients expressing a preference for HST are at heightened risk of remaining unscreened. Colonoscopy should be recommended as the preferred CRC test, but HSTs should be accessible and encouraged for patients who are averse to colonoscopy.Clinical trials.gov: Identifier: NCT02392143.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: What Is the Population's Opinion

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the first cause of death by cancer in Portugal and mortality has been increasing in the last 30 years.

Materials and Methods

During a raising awareness campaign performed by our Gastroenterology Department, in Setúbal, Portugal, an anonymous written questionnaire was developed and presented in order to evaluate the population's knowledge and attitude regarding CRC screening.

Results

The following results were reported: 140 persons; mean age 54.6 years; 61.4% women; 22.1% had a family history of colorectal cancer. The main risk factors mentioned by the respondents were family history of CRC, previous history of intestinal polyps, and intestinal infection. Screening was considered useful by all respondents. About 60% of the respondents had been counselled, at least, on one screening technique, mainly by their general practitioner: colonoscopy in 31, fecal occult blood test in 44, and flexible sigmoidoscopy in 9. Most of the respondents had had the appropriate screening test, according to their age and family history. Fourteen of the respondents had not undergone the recommended screening. Their answers showed that this was due to fear of pain/discovering a disease as well as embarrassment.

Conclusion

Although the majority of the respondents were aware of the importance of CRC screening, results show that there are still several misconceptions about risk factors, fear, and reluctance concerning the screening techniques. Awareness actions are useful to clarify possible questions and inform the population in order to increase compliance with screening.

Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: A multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data

Morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) can be attenuated through guideline concordant screening and intervention. This study used Medicaid and commercial claims data to examine individual and geographic factors associated with CRC testing rates in one state (Oregon). A total of 64,711 beneficiaries (4516 Medicaid; 60,195 Commercial) became newly age-eligible for CRC screening and met inclusion criteria (e.g., continuously enrolled, no prior history) during the study period (January 2010-December 2013). We estimated multilevel models to examine predictors for CRC testing, including individual (e.g., gender, insurance, rurality, access to care, distance to endoscopy facility) and geographic factors at the county level (e.g., poverty, uninsurance). Despite insurance coverage, only two out of five (42%) beneficiaries had evidence of CRC testing during the four year study window. CRC testing varied from 22.4% to 46.8% across Oregon's 36 counties; counties with higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation had lower levels of testing. After controlling for age, beneficiaries had greater odds of receiving CRC testing if they were female (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.08), commercially insured, or urban residents (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07-1.21). Accessing primary care (OR 2.47, 95% CI 2.37-2.57), but not distance to endoscopy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-1.03) was associated with testing. CRC testing in newly age-eligible Medicaid and commercial members remains markedly low. Disparities exist by gender, geographic residence, insurance coverage, and access to primary care. Work remains to increase CRC testing to acceptable levels, and to select and implement interventions targeting the counties and populations in greatest need.

Testing the Effectiveness of a Primary Care Intervention to Improve Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) significantly reduces mortality associated with this disease. In Australia, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program provides regular fecal occult blood tests (FOBT) for those aged 50 to 74 years, however, participation rates in the program have plateaued at 36%. Given low uptake in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, it is necessary to explore alternate methods to increase CRC screening rates. Primary care is a promising adjunct setting to test methods to increase CRC screening participation. Primary care guidelines support the recommendation and provision of CRC screening to primary care patients. Those in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program target age range frequently present to their primary care provider.

OBJECTIVE

This study tests the effect that a multicomponent primary care-based intervention has on CRC screening uptake when compared to usual care.

METHODS

Primary care patients presenting for an appointment with their primary care provider complete a touchscreen survey to determine eligibility for the trial. Those aged 50 to 74 years, at average risk of CRC, with no history of CRC or inflammatory bowel disease, who have not had an FOBT in the past 2 years or a colonoscopy in the past 5 years are eligible to participate in the trial. Trial participants are randomized to the intervention or usual care group by day of attendance at the practice. The intervention consists of provision of an FOBT, printed information sheet, and primary care provider endorsement to complete the FOBT. The usual care group receives no additional care.

RESULTS

The primary outcome is completion of CRC screening 6 weeks after recruitment. The proportion of patients completing CRC screening will be compared between trial groups using a logistic regression model.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening rates in Australia are suboptimal and interventions to increase screening participation are urgently required. This protocol describes the process of implementing a multicomponent intervention designed to increase CRC screening uptake in a primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001299493; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=371136&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pL0VYIj6). Universal Trial Number U1111-1185-6120.

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario.

METHODS

Adults aged 45-54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences.

RESULTS

22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, ISRCTN85697880 , prospectively registered on 25/04/2013.

Comparison of patient preferences for fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy using the analytic hierarchy process

Background

In average-risk individuals aged 50 to 75 years, there is no difference in life-years gained when comparing colonoscopy every 10 years vs. annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening. Little is known about the preferences of patients when they have experienced both tests.

Methods

The study was conducted with 954 patients from the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics during 2010 to 2011. Patients scheduled for a colonoscopy were asked to complete a FIT before the colonoscopy preparation. Following both tests, patients completed a questionnaire which was based on an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decision-making model.

Results

In the AHP analysis, the test accuracy was given the highest priority (0.457), followed by complications (0.321), and test preparation (0.223). Patients preferred colonoscopy (0.599) compared with FIT (0.401) when considering accuracy; preferred FIT (0.589) compared with colonoscopy (0.411) when considering avoiding complications; and preferred FIT (0.650) compared with colonoscopy (0.350) when considering test preparation. The overall aggregated priorities were 0.517 for FIT, and 0.483 for colonoscopy, indicating patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. Patients’ preferences were significantly different before and after provision of detailed information on test features (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

AHP analysis showed that patients slightly preferred FIT over colonoscopy. The information provided to patients strongly affected patient preference. Patients’ test preferences should be considered when ordering a colorectal cancer screening test.

Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments

BACKGROUND

It is well established that screening is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality associated with colorectal cancer (CRC). National screening programs have been implemented in many countries; however, uptake remains an issue. Understanding patient preferences may assist in shaping screening programs and tailoring information about screening tests.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to undertake a systematic review of discrete choice experiments (DCEs) of CRC screening.

METHODS

A systematic review of DCEs of CRC screening was undertaken in an average-risk general population. The methodological qualities of the studies were assessed using a standard checklist outlining best practice for conjoint studies.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the selection criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the data and methods. However, in eight studies, attributes describing accuracy and/or clinical effectiveness were reported to be statistically significant. We also found that individuals were willing to trade-off other attributes such as an increased risk of complications to gain greater clinical benefits. Screening was also preferred to non-screening by the majority of respondents, regardless of the test used.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding and incorporating individuals' preferences in decision making is increasingly considered essential in the health field. Data from DCEs can provide valuable insights into the trade-offs individuals are willing to undertake in respect to CRC screening. Such insights can be used by decision makers to identify screening tests that could maximize informed uptake. It is likely that, with better reporting and evolving methodology, the contribution that DCEs can make to such debates will increase.

Managed care patients' preferences, physician recommendations, and colon cancer screening

Objective To evaluate associations between patients' preferences for attributes of different colorectal (CRC) screening modalities, physician CRC screening recommendations during periodic health exams, and subsequent utilization of screening 12 months later in a large health maintenance organization (HMO). Study Design Multi-method study including baseline surveys from average-risk HMO members joined with audio recordings of 415 periodic health exams (PHEs) and electronic medical record (EMR) data. Methods Patient ratings of test attributes were used to create an algorithm reflecting type and strength of CRC screening modality preference at baseline. Physician recommendations were obtained from audio recordings. Attribute-based test preferences and physician recommendations were compared with CRC test use using chisquare tests. Associations between attribute-based preferences and physician recommendations were assessed using logistic regression. Results Based on attribute rankings, most participants had a weak preference for colonoscopy (COL) (41%), an unclear preference (22.4%), or a weak preference for fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) (18.6%). About half (56%) of patients were screened at 12 months and there was no statistical association between attribute preferences and type of test received. Patients were significantly more likely to receive a recommendation including a test other than COL when they had an attribute-based test preference for FOBT (odds ratio [OR]: 2.17; 95% CI, 1.26-3.71; P < .01). Conclusions CRC screening test use in this large HMO was generally low. It was not associated with patients' preferences for different attributes of CRC screening tests but was associated with physician recommendations. Physicians may have better success in getting patients to screen if they consider preferences for test attributes.

The effects of test preference, test access, and navigation on colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy, mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy, and telephone navigation for FIT and colonoscopy, on screening.

RESULTS

Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (P = 0.005), whereas those who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to perform colonoscopy screening (P = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and colonoscopy was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, P = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, P = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in colonoscopy performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared with a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of nonpreferred tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases colonoscopy. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches.

IMPACT

Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.

Evaluation of a home-based colorectal cancer screening intervention in a rural state

PURPOSE

Distance from health care facilities can be a barrier to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially for colonoscopy. Alternatively, an improved at-home stool-based screening tool, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), requires only a single sample and has a better sensitivity-specificity balance compared to traditional guaiac fecal occult blood tests. Our objective was to determine if FITs mailed to asymptomatic, average-risk patients overdue for screening resulted in higher screening rates versus mailing educational materials alone or no intervention (ie, usual care).

METHODS

Veterans ages 51-64, asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, overdue for screening and in a veterans administration (VA) catchment area covering a large rural population were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) education only (Ed) group: mailed CRC educational materials and a survey of screening history and preferences (N = 499); (2) FIT group: mailed the FIT, plus educational materials and survey (N = 500); and (3) usual care (UC) group: received no mailings (N = 500).

FINDINGS

At 6 months postintervention, 21% of the FIT group had received CRC screening by any method compared to 6% of the Ed group (and 6% of the UC group) (P < .0001). Of the 105 respondents from the FIT group, 71 (68%) were eligible to take the FIT. Of those, 64 (90%) completed the FIT and 8 (12%) tested positive.

CONCLUSIONS

This low-intensity intervention of mailing FITs to average risk patients overdue for screening resulted in a significantly higher screening rate than educational materials alone or usual care, and may be of particular interest in rural areas.

Patient attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin as an alternative to colonoscopic surveillance of groups at increased risk of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVES

To examine attitudes towards an annual faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) versus three-yearly colonoscopic surveillance of individuals at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).

SETTING

A London hospital.

METHODS

Five semi-structured discussion groups were conducted with 28 adults (aged 60-74, 61% female) with different levels of CRC risk and experience of colonoscopy or colonoscopic surveillance. Information was presented sequentially using a step-by-step discussion guide. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

When evaluating FIT in the context of a surveillance programme, all respondents readily made comparisons with related tests that they had been exposed to previously. Those with no experience of surveillance were enthusiastic about an annual FIT to replace three-yearly colonoscopy, because they felt that the higher testing frequency could improve detection of advanced lesions. Those with experience of colonoscopic surveillance did not perceive FIT to be as accurate as colonoscopy, and therefore either preferred colonoscopy on its own or wanted an annual FIT in addition to three-yearly colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

FIT may be well-received as an additional method of surveillance for new patients at intermediate risk of CRC. More research is required to better understand potential barriers associated with FIT surveillance for patients with experience of colonoscopic surveillance.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in a community health center

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or endoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Screening rates are particularly low for people with low incomes and members of underrepresented minority groups. FOBT should be done annually to detect CRC early and to reduce CRC mortality, but this often does not occur. This paper describes the design of a multifaceted intervention to increase long-term adherence to FOBT among poor, predominantly Latino patients, and the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of this intervention compared to usual care.

Methods

In this RCT, patients who are due for repeat FOBT are identified in the electronic health record (EHR) and randomized to receive either usual care or a multifaceted intervention. The usual care group includes multiple point-of-care interventions (e.g., standing orders, EHR reminders), performance measurement, and financial incentives to improve CRC screening rates. The intervention augments usual care through mailed CRC screening test kits, low literacy patient education materials, automated phone and text message reminders, in-person follow up calls from a CRC Screening Coordinator, and communication of results to patients along with a reminder card highlighting when the patient is next due for screening. The primary outcome is completion of FOBT within 6 months of becoming due.

Discussion

The main goal of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. Additionally, we want to assess whether or not it is possible to achieve high rates of adherence to CRC screening with annual FOBT, which is necessary for reducing CRC mortality. The intervention relies on technology that is increasingly widespread and declining in cost, including EHR systems, automated phone and text messaging, and FOBTs for CRC screening. We took this approach to ensure generalizability and allow us to rapidly disseminate the intervention through networks of community health centers (CHCs) if the RCT shows the intervention to be superior to usual care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01453894

Differences in microbial signatures between rectal mucosal biopsies and rectal swabs

There is growing evidence the microbiota of the large bowel may influence the risk of developing colorectal cancer as well as other diseases including type-1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel diseases and irritable bowel syndrome. Current sampling methods to obtain microbial specimens, such as feces and mucosal biopsies, are inconvenient and unappealing to patients. Obtaining samples through rectal swabs could prove to be a quicker and relatively easier method, but it is unclear if swabs are an adequate substitute. We compared bacterial diversity and composition from rectal swabs and rectal mucosal biopsies in order to examine the viability of rectal swabs as an alternative to biopsies. Paired rectal swabs and mucosal biopsy samples were collected in un-prepped participants (n = 11) and microbial diversity was characterized by Terminal Restriction Fragment Length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of the 16S rRNA gene. Microbial community composition from swab samples was different from rectal mucosal biopsies (p = 0.001). Overall the bacterial diversity was higher in swab samples than in biopsies as assessed by diversity indexes such as: richness (p = 0.01), evenness (p = 0.06) and Shannon's diversity (p = 0.04). Analysis of specific bacterial groups by qPCR showed higher copy number of Lactobacillus (p < 0.0001) and Eubacteria (p = 0.0003) in swab samples compared with biopsies. Our findings suggest that rectal swabs and rectal mucosal samples provide different views of the microbiota in the large intestine.

Patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer screening: who initiates elements of informed decision making?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain low among low-income minority populations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate informed decision making (IDM) elements about CRC screening among low-income minority patients.

DESIGN

Observational data were collected as part of a patient-level randomized controlled trial to improve CRC screening rates. Medical visits (November 2007 to May 2010) were audio-taped and coded for IDM elements about CRC screening. Near the end of the study one provider refused recording of patients' visits (33 of 270 patients). Among all patients in the trial, agreement to be audio taped was 43.5 % (103/237). Evaluable patient (n = 100) visits were assessed for CRC screening discussion occurrence, IDM elements, and who initiated discussion of each IDM element.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients were African American (72.2 %), female (63.7 %), with annual household incomes <$20,000 (60.7 %), without health insurance (57.0 %), and limited health literacy (53.7 %).

KEY RESULTS

Although CRC screening was mentioned during 48 (48 %) visits, no further discussion about screening occurred in 23 visits (19 times mentioned by the participant with no response from providers). During any visit, the maximum number of IDM elements was five; however, only two visits included five elements. The most common IDM element discussed in addition to the nature of the decision was the assessment of the patient's understanding in 16 (33.3 %) of the visits that included a CRC discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient activation intervention initiated CRC screening discussions with health care providers; however, limited IDM occurred about CRC screening during medical visits of minority and low-income patients.

Trends in colorectal cancer screening with home-based fecal occult blood tests in adults ages 50 to 64 years, 2000-2008

BACKGROUND

National surveys have reported declines in rates of home-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the last decade. However, socioeconomic status (SES) and racial/ethnic differences in FOBT trends and their changes relative to endoscopic CRC screening have not been evaluated.

METHODS

Data on adults ages 50 to 64 years from the 2000, 2005, and 2008 National Health Interview Surveys were used. Weighted analyses and multivariate logistic regression were used to study trends in the use of FOBT and endoscopic CRC screening during this period.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2008, significant declines in FOBT prevalence occurred in higher SES groups, but not in lower SES groups (uninsured and publicly insured, those without a usual source of care, lower educated, lower income, and immigrants to the United States) or Hispanics. Endoscopic CRC screening during the period studied consistently increased in all higher SES subgroups. In contrast, few lower SES subgroups (publicly insured, lower educated, near poor individuals, long-term immigrants) and Hispanics experienced increases in CRC endoscopic screening, and these increases were smaller than those observed in higher SES subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Socially and economically disadvantaged groups experienced little or no change in FOBT prevalence, and few of these groups experienced contemporaneous increases in CRC endoscopic screening. These trends suggest the continued availability and acceptance of FOBT in these groups. If national CRC screening goals are to be achieved in populations with lower access to colonoscopy, then annual high-sensitivity FOBT should be promoted as an immediately accessible and viable alternative.

Patients' experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context--a systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to characterise patients' own experience of colonoscopy in the screening context.

METHODS

A search strategy was applied in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo (1996-2009). Thematic analysis and narrative summary techniques were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Seven studies examined patients' views after having colonoscopy. Forty-seven studies addressed patient-reported barriers to an anticipated primary colonoscopy. Most patients perceived the laxative bowel preparation to be the most burdensome part of colonoscopy. Other reported difficulties included anxiety, anticipation of pain, feelings of embarrassment and vulnerability. Inadequate knowledge and fear of finding cancer were identified as obstacles to the uptake of screening colonoscopy. Physician endorsement, having a family history, knowing someone with cancer, and perceived accuracy of the test were incentives to having a colonoscopy. Two studies focused on colonoscopy after faecal occult blood screening. Similar procedural, personal, and practical concerns were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Bowel preparation, lack of awareness of the importance of screening, and feelings of vulnerability in women are all significant barriers to screening colonoscopy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient reported obstacles and barriers to screening colonoscopy needs to be addressed to improve adherence.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test preference and examine the association between test preference and test completed.

METHODS

Patients (n = 1224) were 50-70 years, at average CRC risk, and overdue for screening. Outcome variables were preference for fecal occult blood test (FOBT), colonoscopy (COL), sigmoidoscopy (SIG), or barium enema (BE), measured by telephone survey, and concordance between test preference and test completed assessed using medical records.

RESULTS

Thirty-five percent preferred FOBT, 41.1% COL, 12.7% SIG, and 5.7% BE. Preference for SIG or COL was associated with having a physician recommendation, greater screening readiness, test-specific self-efficacy, greater CRC worry, and perceived pros of screening. Preference for FOBT was associated with self-efficacy for doing FOBT. Participants who preferred COL were more likely to complete COL compared with those who preferred another test. Of those screened, only 50% received their preferred test. Those not receiving their preferred test most often received COL (52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of concordance between patient preference and test completed suggests that patients' preferences are not well incorporated into screening discussions and test decisions, which could contribute to low screening uptake. Physicians should acknowledge patients' preferences when discussing test options and making recommendations, which may increase patients' receptivity to screening.

The impact of a novel computer-based decision aid on shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Eliciting patients' preferences within a framework of shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a strategy for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence. Our objective was to assess the effectiveness of a novel decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting.

METHODS

An interactive, computer-based decision aid for CRC screening was developed and evaluated within the context of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 665 average-risk patients (mean age, 57 years; 60% female; 63% black, 6% Hispanic) were allocated to 1 of 2 intervention arms (decision aid alone, decision aid plus personalized risk assessment) or a control arm. The interventions were delivered just prior to a scheduled primary care visit. Outcome measures (patient preferences, knowledge, satisfaction with the decision-making process [SDMP], concordance between patient preference and test ordered, and intentions) were evaluated using prestudy/poststudy visit questionnaires and electronic scheduling.

RESULTS

Overall, 95% of patients in the intervention arms identified a preferred screening option based on values placed on individual test features. Mean cumulative knowledge, SDMP, and intention scores were significantly higher for both intervention groups compared with the control group. Concordance between patient preference and test ordered was 59%. Patients who preferred colonoscopy were more likely to have a test ordered than those who preferred an alternative option (83% v. 70%; P < 0.01). Intention scores were significantly higher when the test ordered reflected patient preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our interactive computer-based decision aid facilitates SDM, but overall effectiveness is determined by the extent to which providers comply with patient preferences.

Patient and Provider Preferences for Colorectal Cancer Screening: How Does CT Colonography Compare to Other Modalities?

OBJECTIVES

Patient and provider preferences toward CT colonography (CTC) remain unclear. The primary goals of this study were 1) to investigate patient preferences for one of the currently recommended CRC screening modalities and 2) to evaluate provider preferences before and after review of updated guidelines.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of ambulatory-care patients and providers in the primary care setting. Providers were surveyed before and after reviewing the 2008 guidelines by the American Cancer Society, US Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American College of Radiology.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients surveyed, 59% preferred colonoscopy, 17% fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), 14% stool DNA (sDNA) testing, and 10% CTC (P <0.001). The majority of those whose first choice was a stool-based test chose the alternate stool-based test as their second choice over CTC or colonoscopy (P<0.0001). Patients who preferred colonoscopy chose accuracy (76%) and frequency of testing (10%) as the most important test features, whereas patients who preferred a stool-based test chose discomfort (52%) and complications (23%). Of 170 providers surveyed, 96% chose colonoscopy, 2% FOBT, and 1% FOBT with flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) (p < 0.0001). No providers chose CTC or sDNA as their preferred option before reviewing guidelines, and 89% kept their preference after review of guidelines. As a default option for patients who declined colonoscopy, 44% of providers chose FOBT, 12% FOBT+FS, 4% CTC, and 37% deferred to patient preference before review of guidelines. Of the 33% of providers who changed their preference after review of guidelines, 46% recommended CTC. Accuracy was the most influential reason for provider test choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and providers prefer colonoscopy for CRC screening. Revised guidelines endorsing the use of CTC are unlikely to change provider preferences but may influence choice of default strategies for patients who decline colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer screening preferences among African Americans: which screening test is preferred?

African Americans are diagnosed at late stages and suffer disproportionately higher mortality rates from colorectal cancer (CRC). Increasing their participation in CRC screening can help reduce these disparities. In-depth personal interviews were conducted with 60 African Americans to understand if CRC test preferences exist and to identify what attributes of screening tests influence test preferences. Most individuals interviewed preferred colonoscopy as compared to FOBT. Previous participation in CRC screening influenced how individuals made decisions about CRC screening. Enabling individuals without CRC screening experience to first complete FOBT might prepare them to later participate in colonoscopy screening.

What is most important to patients when deciding about colorectal screening?

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can be administered through tests with varied characteristics and is a preference-sensitive decision.

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient experiences with a Maximum Differences Scaling (MDS) tool for eliciting values about CRC screening test characteristics and determine whether patients vary in how they prioritize test characteristics and whether this variation relates to test preferences.

DESIGN

MDS survey to elicit patients' values for characteristics related to fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, CT colonography and colon capsule endoscopy.

PARTICIPANTS

92 patients enrolled in primary care clinics at a VA hospital and associated university.

RESULTS

Patients reported that the tool was easy to use (95%). On completion 62% would choose colonoscopy, 23% colon capsule endoscopy and 10% CT colonography. Of the attributes evaluated, patients valued sensitivity, risk of tear and need for a second test most. Sensitivity was more important to those choosing colonoscopy than those choosing other tests (median importance = 21.5 versus 19.6, p < 0.01). Concern with complications and sedation was positively associated with age (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001), whereas concern with colon preparation and missing work was negatively associated with age (p < 0.009 and p < 0.03). Patients with fair or poor health status were less concerned with sensitivity than patients in good to excellent health (median importance = 19.3 versus 21.4, p < 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that patients vary in how they prioritize colorectal cancer screening test attributes; this variation is associated with test preferences, and this MDS tool is feasible to use and may help patients construct their preferences.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50-75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out).

RESULTS

In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age+/-s.d. 61+/-6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects' preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.

Preferences for colorectal cancer screening strategies: a discrete choice experiment

Background:

Guidelines underline the role of individual preferences in the selection of a screening test, as insufficient evidence is available to recommend one screening test over another. We conducted a study to determine the preferences of individuals and to predict uptake for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes using various screening tests.

Methods:

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) questionnaire was distributed among naive subjects, yet to be screened, and previously screened subjects, aged 50–75 years. Subjects were asked to choose between scenarios on the basis of faecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), total colonoscopy (TC) with various test-specific screening intervals and mortality reductions, and no screening (opt-out).

Results:

In total, 489 out of 1498 (33%) screening-naïve subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±7 years) and 545 out of 769 (71%) previously screened subjects (52% male; mean age±s.d. 61±6 years) returned the questionnaire. The type of screening test, screening interval, and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality influenced subjects’ preferences (all P<0.05). Screening-naive and previously screened subjects equally preferred 5-yearly FS and 10-yearly TC (P=0.24; P=0.11), but favoured both strategies to annual FOBT screening (all P-values <0.001) if, based on the literature, realistic risk reduction of CRC-related mortality was applied. Screening-naive and previously screened subjects were willing to undergo a 10-yearly TC instead of a 5-yearly FS to obtain an additional risk reduction of CRC-related mortality of 45% (P<0.001).

Conclusion:

These data provide insight into the extent by which interval and risk reduction of CRC-related mortality affect preferences for CRC screening tests. Assuming realistic test characteristics, subjects in the target population preferred endoscopic screening over FOBT screening, partly, due to the more favourable risk reduction of CRC-related mortality by endoscopy screening. Increasing the knowledge of potential screenees regarding risk reduction by different screening strategies is, therefore, warranted to prevent unrealistic expectations and to optimise informed choice.

Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have remained lower than the Healthy People 2010 goal, particularly among minority populations.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine the racial-ethnic trends in CRC screening and the continued impact of healthcare access indicators on screening differences after Medicare expanded coverage.

METHODS

The study used data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 2000, 2003, and 2005. The sample was restricted to non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanics. The primary outcome was the proportion of enrollees who underwent lower-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 5 years and/or home fecal occult blood test within 1 year.

RESULTS

Over the 6-year period under study, the proportion screened increased among each of the three racial-ethnic groups, but lower proportions of blacks and Hispanics underwent screening compared with whites at each time point. Hispanic-white differences persisted but black-white differences narrowed in 2003 and widened in 2005. In each survey year, racial differences attenuated after adjustment for type of supplemental health insurance and disappeared after further adjustment for educational and income levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite expanding benefits for CRC screening, which would be expected to disproportionally benefit racial and ethnic minorities, racial disparities in use of screening persist in part because of differences in the types of health insurance coverage, education, and income. There was a slight reversal of the initial attenuation of the black-white difference after the Medicare policy change. Efforts are needed to increase the reach of CRC screening to minority populations, particularly those lacking adequate health insurance coverage or with less education or income.

Colorectal cancer screening mode preferences among US veterans

OBJECTIVE

To assess colorectal cancer (CRC) screening mode preferences and correlates of these preferences among US veterans at average risk for CRC.

METHOD

A cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample of VA patients was conducted between January 2005 and December 2006. We report preference distributions for screening modes among 2068 average-risk veterans and across patient subgroups based on personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. Independent predictors of preferences are identified through hierarchical logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy (37%) was the most preferred mode followed by fecal occult blood test (FOBT) (29%). The strongest predictors of preferences were previous screening experience, provider recommendation, and use of non-VA healthcare services. Participants in higher socioeconomic groups were more likely to choose colonoscopy and less likely to indicate no preference.

CONCLUSION

Screening programs that offer only one mode fail to accommodate the preferences of a substantial proportion of patients. Within the VA, adding screening colonoscopy to programs currently offering only FOBT is likely to increase preferences for colonoscopy, as patients incorporate provider recommendations for and personal experience with colonoscopy into their preferences. This is likely to disproportionately benefit lower socioeconomic groups who do not currently have access to non-VA colonoscopy services.