Lung Cancer Screening in the US, 2022.

Importance: The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography in high-risk individuals (age 50-80 years, ≥20 pack-years currently smoking or formerly smoked, and quit <15 years ago) for early detection of LC. However, representative state-level LCS data are unavailable nationwide. Objective: To estimate the contemporary prevalence of up-to-date (UTD) LCS in the US nationwide and across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) population-based, nationwide, state-representative survey for respondents aged 50 to 79 years who were eligible for LCS according to the 2021 USPSTF eligibility criteria. Data analysis was performed from October 1, 2023, to March 20, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was self-reported UTD-LCS (defined as past-year) prevalence according to the 2021 USPSTF eligibility criteria in respondents aged 50 to 79 years. Adjusted prevalence ratios (APRs) and 95% CIs compared differences. Results: Among 25 958 sample respondents eligible for LCS (median [IQR] age, 62 [11] years), 61.5% reported currently smoking, 54.4% were male, 64.4% were aged 60 years or older, and 53.0% had a high school education or less. The UTD-LCS prevalence was 18.1% overall, but varied across states (range, 9.7%-31.0%), with relatively lower levels in southern states characterized by high LC mortality burden. The UTD-LCS prevalence increased with age (50-54 years: 6.7%; 70-79 years: 27.1%) and number of comorbidities (≥3: 24.6%; none: 8.7%). A total of 3.7% of those without insurance and 5.1% of those without a usual source of care were UTD with LCS, but state-level Medicaid expansions (APR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.30-5.53) and higher screening capacity levels (high vs low: APR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.36-2.75) were associated with higher UTD-LCS prevalence. Conclusions and Relevance: This study of data from the 2022 BRFSS found that the overall prevalence of UTD-LCS was low. Disparities were largest according to health care access and geographically across US states, with low prevalence in southern states with high LC burden. The findings suggest that state-based initiatives to expand access to health care and screening facilities may be associated with improved LCS rates and reduced disparities.

Cancer in people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender-nonconforming.

BACKGROUND: Individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or gender-nonconforming (LGBTQ+) experience discrimination and minority stress that may lead to elevated cancer risk. METHODS: In the absence of population-based cancer occurrence information for this population, this article comprehensively examines contemporary, age-adjusted cancer risk factor and screening prevalence using data from the National Health Interview Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and National Youth Tobacco Survey, and provides a literature review of cancer incidence and barriers to care. RESULTS: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults are more likely to smoke cigarettes than heterosexual adults (16% compared to 12% in 2021-2022), with the largest disparity among bisexual women. For example, 34% of bisexual women aged 40-49 years and 24% of those 50 and older smoke compared to 12% and 11%, respectively, of heterosexual women. Smoking is also elevated among youth who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (4%) or transgender (5%) compared to heterosexual or cisgender (1%). Excess body weight is elevated among lesbian and bisexual women (68% vs. 61% among heterosexual women), largely due to higher obesity prevalence among bisexual women (43% vs. 38% among lesbian women and 33% among heterosexual women). Bisexual women also have a higher prevalence of no leisure-time physical activity (35% vs. 28% among heterosexual women), as do transgender individuals (30%-31% vs. 21%-25% among cisgender individuals). Heavier alcohol intake among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals is confined to bisexual women, with 14% consuming more than 7 drinks/week versus 6% of heterosexual women. In contrast, prevalence of cancer screening and risk reducing vaccinations in LGBTQ+ individuals is similar to or higher than their heterosexual/cisgender counterparts except for lower cervical and colorectal cancer screening among transgender men. CONCLUSIONS: People within the LGBTQ+ population have a higher prevalence of smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption compared to heterosexual and cisgender people, suggesting a higher cancer burden. Health systems have an opportunity to help inform these disparities through the routine collection of information on sexual orientation and gender identity to facilitate cancer surveillance and to mitigate them through education to increase awareness of LGBTQ+ health needs.

Incarceration History and Access to and Receipt of Health Care in the US.

Importance: People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. Objective: To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. Design, Setting, and Participants: Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. Main Measures and Outcomes: Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self-reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. Results: A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care.

Colorectal cancer screening test exposure patterns in US adults 45 to 49 years of age, 2019-2021.

Several organizations now recommend that individuals at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) begin screening at 45 rather than 50 years of age. We present contemporary estimates of CRC screening in newly eligible adults aged 45 to 49 years between 2019 and 2021. Nationally representative prevalence estimates and population number screened were estimated based on the National Health Interview Survey. A logistic regression model assessed CRC screening prevalence differences by survey year and sociodemographic characteristics. In 2021, 19.7%-that is, fewer than 4 million of the eligible 19 million adults aged 45 to 49 years-were up-to-date on CRC screening. Screening was lowest in those who were uninsured (7.6%), had less than a high school diploma (15.4%), and Asian (13.1%). Additionally, fecal occult blood test and/or fecal immunochemical testing was underused, with only 2.4% (<460 000 people) reporting being up-to-date with screening using this modality in 2021. CRC screening in eligible young adults remains low. Concerted efforts to improve screening are warranted, particularly in underserved populations.

Changes in E-Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adults, 2019-2021.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use increased between 2014 and 2018 among younger U.S. adults who had never smoked combustible cigarettes, potentially increasing nicotine addiction risk and progression to combustible tobacco products. It is unknown how prevalence changed after the E-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury epidemic (late 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) by age group and combustible cigarette smoking status. METHODS: Data from cross-sectional, nationally representative National Health Interview Surveys in 2019, 2020, and 2021 (analyzed in 2022) were used to estimate current E-cigarette use prevalence, adjusted prevalence difference between survey years, and population counts, by age group (younger, 18-29 years, n=11,700; middle age, 30-44 years, n=21,300, 45-59 years, n=21,308; older, ≥60 years, n=36,224) and cigarette smoking status (current, former, and never). RESULTS: E-cigarette use prevalence increased among younger adults between 2019 and 2021 (8.8%-10.2%, adjusted prevalence difference=1.7% points, 95% CI=0.1, 3.3), primarily owing to an increase among those who never smoked cigarettes (4.9%-6.4%, adjusted prevalence difference=1.7% points, 95% CI=0.3, 3.1). People who never smoked cigarettes constituted 53% (2.68 million) of younger adults who used E-cigarettes in 2021, increasing by 0.71 million from 2019. Conversely, among middle age and older adults, the prevalence was similar in 2019 and 2021 irrespective of cigarette smoking status, and those who formerly smoked cigarettes constituted the largest proportion of people who used E-cigarettes in 2021 (age 30-44 years: 51.8%, 1.8 million; age 45-59 years: 51.6%, 0.85 million; age ≥60 years: 47.5%, 0.45 million). CONCLUSIONS: Efforts must address the rise in E-cigarette use among younger adults who never smoked cigarettes. At the same time, assistance is needed to help those who switched to E-cigarettes to stop smoking to transition to non-use of all products.

Updated Review of Major Cancer Risk Factors and Screening Test use in the United States, with a Focus on Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We present national and state representative prevalence estimates of modifiable cancer risk factors, preventive behaviors and services, and screening, with a focus on changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2019 and 2021, current smoking, physical inactivity, and heavy alcohol consumption declined, and human papillomavirus vaccination and stool testing for colorectal cancer screening uptake increased. In contrast, obesity prevalence increased, while fruit consumption and cervical cancer screening declined during the same timeframe. Favorable and unfavorable trends were evident during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic that must be monitored as more years of consistent data are collected. Yet disparities by racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status persisted, highlighting the continued need for interventions to address suboptimal levels among these population subgroups.

Cancer Screening in the United States During the Second Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To examine whether cancer screening prevalence in the United States during 2021 has returned to prepandemic levels using nationally representative data. METHODS: Information on receipt of age-eligible screening for breast (women age 50-74 years), cervical (women without a hysterectomy age 21-65 years), prostate (men age 55-69 years), and colorectal cancer (men and women age 50-75 years) according to the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations was obtained from the 2019 and 2021 National Health Interview Survey. Past-year screening prevalence in 2019 and 2021 and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs), 2021 versus 2019, with their 95% CIs were calculated using complex survey logistic regression models. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021, past-year screening in the United States decreased from 59.9% to 57.1% (aPR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.97) for breast cancer, from 45.3% to 39.0% (aPR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.89) for cervical cancer, and from 39.5% to 36.3% (aPR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.97) for prostate cancer. Declines were most notable for non-Hispanic Asian persons. Colorectal cancer screening prevalence remained unchanged because an increase in past-year stool testing (from 7.0% to 10.3%; aPR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.58) offset a decline in colonoscopy (from 15.5% to 13.8%; aPR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95). The increase in stool testing was most pronounced in non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic populations and in persons with low socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Past-year screening prevalence for breast, cervical, and prostate cancer among age-eligible adults in the United States continued to be lower than prepandemic levels in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, reinforcing the importance of return to screening health system outreach and media campaigns. The large increase in stool testing emphasizes the role of home-based screening during health care system disruptions.[Media: see text].

The association of initiating HPV vaccination at ages 9-10 years and up-to-date status among adolescents ages 13-17 years, 2016-2020.

Recent guidelines from the American Cancer Society stress HPV vaccination series initiation at the youngest opportunity, i.e., age 9 years. There are limited data on the association between initiating HPV vaccination at ages 9-10 years and up-to-date (UTD) status. In this study, we compare nationally representative UTD HPV vaccination rates between adolescents who initiated the series younger (ages 9-10 years) vs. older (≥ age 11 years). Five years of pooled data (2016-2020) from National Immunization Survey-Teen were used to estimate the UTD HPV vaccination prevalence among younger vs. older initiating 13-17-year-olds. Adjusted logistic regression models estimated prevalence ratios (aPRs), differences (aDs), and difference in differences (aDDs) in prevalence of being UTD to assess the overall association of age at initiation with being UTD and differences in sociodemographic predictors of being UTD among younger vs. older initiators. UTD prevalence for younger initiators was 93% compared with 72% among older initiators (aPR: 1.27,95%CI: 1.24,1.31). Among older initiators, UTD prevalence was significantly different by sex, insurance status, and current age; no such differences were observed among younger initiators. Results indicate that younger initiation is associated with a 27% higher UTD prevalence, highlighting the importance of promoting younger initiation, particularly among those with health-care barriers.

The First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Changes in Preventive Services in Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Community Health Centers provide comprehensive primary healthcare services to many underserved populations. It is unknown how routine preventive and chronic care services in Community Health Centers may have changed nationwide during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The 2014-2020 Health Resources and Services Administration Uniform Data System of Community Health Centers was used, and data analysis was conducted from November 2021 to May 2022. Data for clinical quality measures in 2020 were treated as during the pandemic, whereas receipt of care in 2019 and before were treated as before the pandemic. Outcomes included 6 clinical quality measures of being up to date for colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, tobacco screening and cessation counseling, BMI screening and follow-up, depression screening and follow-up, and aspirin use for ischemic vascular disease. A mixed effects regression model was used to estimate changes in measures by year. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2020, receipt of preventive services declined for each of the 6 clinical quality measures: from 40.8% to 37.7% for colorectal cancer screening, from 48.8% to 44.9% for cervical cancer screening, from 85.8% to 83.4% for tobacco screening and cessation counseling, from 70.7% to 65.4% for BMI screening and follow-up, from 71.1% to 64.9% for depression screening and follow-up, and from 81.5% to 79.4% for aspirin use for ischemic vascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of preventive services in Community Health Centers declined during the COVID-19 pandemic for each of the 6 clinical quality measures considered in the study. Immediate action is required to support ongoing high-quality, primary healthcare services in Community Health Centers across the nation.

Changes in Cancer Screening in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Health care was disrupted in the US during the first quarter of 2020 with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Early reports in selected samples suggested that cancer screening services decreased greatly, but population-based estimates of cancer screening prevalence during 2020 have not yet been reported. Objective: To examine changes in breast cancer (BC), cervical cancer (CC), and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence with contemporary national, population-based Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included respondents from the 2014, 2016, 2018, and 2020 BRFSS surveys who were eligible for BC (women aged 50-74 years), CC (women aged 25-64 years), and CRC (women and men aged 50-75 years) screening. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to February 2022. Exposures: Calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported receipt of a recent (defined as in the past year) BC, CC, and CRC screening test. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) comparing 2020 vs 2018 prevalence and 95% CIs were computed. Results: In total, 479 248 individuals were included in the analyses of BC screening, 301 453 individuals were included in CC screening, and 854 210 individuals were included in CRC screening, In 2020, among respondents aged 50 to 75 years, 14 815 (11.4%) were Black, 12 081 (12.6%) were Hispanic, 156 198 (67.3%) were White, and 79 234 (29.9%) graduated from college (all percentages are weighted). After 4 years (2014-2018) of nearly steady prevalence, past-year BC screening decreased by 6% between 2018 and 2020 (from 61.6% in 2018 to 57.8% in 2020; aPR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96), and CC screening decreased by 11% (from 58.3% in 2018 to 51.9% in 2020; aPR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.87-0.91). The magnitude of these decreases was greater in people with lower educational attainment and Hispanic persons. CRC screening prevalence remained steady; past-year stool testing increased by 7% (aPR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12), offsetting a 16% decrease in colonoscopy (aPR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.82-0.88) between 2018 and 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, stool testing increased and counterbalanced a decrease in colonoscopy during 2020, and BC and CC screening modestly decreased. How these findings might be associated with outcomes is not yet known, but they will be important to monitor, especially in populations with lower socioeconomic status, who experienced greater screening decreases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A first look at breast cancer screening in over 1000 community health centers in the United States.

Community Health Centers (CHCs) primarily serve low-income and vulnerable patients. Breast cancer screening recently became a quality-of-care metric in the annual Uniform Data System (UDS) report, and this study examines the first year of breast cancer screening data among 1375 CHCs in the United States. Clinics with available screening data (n = 1070) were categorized based on US region, state expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act, ranked terciles of race/ethnic composition (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic/Latino patients), and proportion uninsured. Less than half of women eligible for breast cancer screening, 43.6% (95% CI:42.6%, 44.6%), were up-to-date. CHCs with medium or high proportions of Black (PR: 0.91, 0.86) and uninsured (PR: 0.90, 0.86) patients had between 9%-14% lower breast cancer screening rates than CHCs with low proportions of these populations. CHCs in Medicaid expansion states and in Northeastern states had significantly higher screening rates than non-expansion states and the Midwest, South, and Western states. In conclusion, our findings show that only half of women eligible who received care within CHCs were screened for breast cancer. Disparities in breast cancer screening rates are seen for clinics with high proportions of Black and uninsured patients, along with clinics outside the northeast and clinics in non-Medicaid expansion states. Targeted solutions centered around reducing cost, improving quality, and reducing structural disparities are needed to address low rates of breast cancer screening in low-income women who visited CHCs and already experience healthcare inequities.

The Academic-Practice Partnership: Educating Future Nurses.

Strong partnerships are essential to lead the innovative change needed to prepare future nurses who demonstrate quality and safety competence. Successful models involve senior leadership, a shared vision, mutual goals, mutual respect, and an access to shared knowledge. The academic-practice partnership between a private university-based school of nursing and its affiliated health care system facilitated the implementation of a new Accelerated Bachelor of Science in Nursing (ABSN) program track to provide a seamless education to practice pathway for graduate nurses educated with quality and safety competencies and to meet the workforce demands of the health care system. The academic-practice model is based on the Guiding Principles outlined by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing-American Organization of Nurse Leaders (AACN-AONL) Task Force on Academic Practice Partnerships. As a result of this partnership, 84% of the program's graduates accepted a position with the health care partner as an advanced medical-surgical nurse, and student outcomes in quality and safety competencies were encouraging.

Synchronous virtual interprofessional education focused on discharge planning.

COVID-19 required innovative approaches to educating health professions students who could no longer attend in-person classes or clinical rotations. Interprofessional education (IPE) activities were similarly impacted. To replace an in-person IPE activity slated for this spring, nursing and medical students with similar levels of clinical experience came together to attend a synchronous virtual session focused on discharge planning. The class objectives focused on the IPEC competencies of Role/Responsibility and Interprofessional Communication. Discussion revolved around the discharge planning process for an elderly patient with multiple medical problems, as this is a time when interprofessional collaboration has a clear benefit to patients. Twenty-eight nursing students and eleven medical students attended a 90 min session via Zoom. Students received pre-readings, the day's agenda, learning objectives, and discussion questions in advance. The session had three sections: introduction/welcome, breakout sessions, and debrief and evaluation. Four faculty leaders and four students who participated in a similar in-person session in the past served as facilitators. They received a supplemental facilitator guide for use if students were not able to sustain their discussions for the allotted time. Materials can be accessed by contacting the corresponding author (BR). Students completed a post-session survey, and qualitative analysis demonstrated that they had addressed the two relevant IPEC competencies in their groups and showed evidence of touching on the additional two IPEC competencies as well. Overall, they enjoyed the experience. This virtual experience made scheduling simpler than planning an in-person session and allowed this activity to occur despite restrictions secondary to the pandemic. This might remain a useful format for similar sessions in the future.