Analysis of the benefits and costs of a national campaign to promote colorectal cancer screening: CDC's screen for life-national colorectal cancer action campaign.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Screen for Life: National Colorectal Cancer Action Campaign (SFL) is one of the longest running national multimedia campaigns to promote colorectal cancer screening. Since its inception in 1999, no study has quantified the benefits and costs of SFL. We modeled the impact of SFL campaign on screening rates, assuming that the effect size would range from 0.5% to 10% of the unscreened population exposed to the campaign in the last 14 years. Given the estimated benefits of the campaign and costs, we calculated the cost per person screened (2012 dollars). We hypothesize that if 0.5% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened for colorectal cancer, an additional 251,000 previously unscreened individuals would be screened. The average cost of SFL per person screened would be $2.44. On the other hand, if 10% of the population exposed to campaign messages were screened, an additional 5.01 million individuals would be screened. The average cost per person screened would be $0.12. Results indicate that SFL improves screening rates at a relatively low cost per person screened. The findings in this study provide an important starting point and benchmark for future research efforts to determine the benefits and costs of health communication campaigns to promote cancer prevention.

Primary care physicians' reported use of pre-screening discussions for prostate cancer screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Professional medical organizations recommend individualized patient decision making about prostate cancer screening. Little is known about primary care physicians' use of pre-screening discussions to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening. The aim of this study is to explore physicians' use of pre-screening discussions and reasons why physicians would or would not try to persuade patients to be screened if they initially refuse testing. METHODS: Primary care physicians completed a self-administered survey about prostate cancer screening practices for informed decision making. RESULTS: Sixty-six physicians (75.9%) completed the survey, and 63 were used in the analysis. Thirteen physicians (20.6%) reported not using prescreening discussions, 45 (71.4%) reported the use of prescreening discussions, and 3 (4.8%) reported neither ordering the PSA test nor discussing it with patients. Sixty-nine percent of physicians who reported not having discussions indicated they were more likely to screen African American patients for prostate cancer, compared to 50% of physicians who reported the use of discussions (Chi-square(1) = 1.62, p = .20). Similarly, 91% of physicians who reported not having discussions indicated they are more likely to screen patients with a family history of prostate cancer, compared to 46% of those who reported the use of discussion (Chi-square(1) = 13.27, p < .001). Beliefs about the scientific evidence and efficacy of screening, ethical concerns regarding patient autonomy, and concerns about time constraints differed between physicians who would and would not try to persuade a patient to be tested. CONCLUSION: Although guidelines recommend discussing the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, physicians report varying practice styles. Future research needs to consider the nature of discussions and the degree to which informed decision making is being achieved in clinical practice.