Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND: A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program's (NHCRCSP) patient navigation (PN) program. The PN intervention was delivered by telephone with navigators following a rigorous, six-topic protocol to support low-income patients to complete colonoscopy screening. We applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework to examine implementation processes and consider potential scalability of this intervention. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation study was conducted including 1) a quasi-experimental, retrospective, comparison group study examining program effectiveness, 2) secondary analysis of NHCRCSP program data, and 3) a case study. Data for all navigated patients scheduled and notified of their colonoscopy test date between July 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 (N = 443) were analyzed. Researchers were provided in-depth call details for 50 patients randomly selected from the group of 443. The case study included review of program documents, observations of navigators, and interviews with 27 individuals including staff, patients, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Program reach was state-wide, with navigators serving patients from across the state. The program successfully recruited patients from the intended priority population who met the established age, income, and insurance eligibility guidelines. Analysis of the 443 NHCRCSP patients navigated during the study period demonstrated effectiveness with 97.3% completing colonoscopy, zero missed appointments (no-shows), and 0.7% late cancellations. Trained and supervised nurse navigators spent an average of 124.3 min delivering the six-topic PN protocol to patients. Navigators benefited from a real-time data system that allowed for patient tracking, communication across team members, and documentation of service delivery. Evaluators identified several factors supporting program maintenance including consistent funding support from CDC, a strong program infrastructure, and partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Factors supporting implementation included funding for colonoscopies, use of registered nurses, a clinical champion, strong partnerships with primary care and endoscopy sites, fidelity to the PN protocol, significant intervention dose, and a real-time data system. Further study is needed to assess scalability to other locations.

Adoption and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Among Cancer Control Program Grantees, 2009-2015.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation. INTERVENTION APPROACH: CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates. EVALUATION METHODS: We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation. RESULTS: Most grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

Increasing colonoscopy screening in disparate populations: Results from an evaluation of patient navigation in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: To investigate uniformly successful results from a statewide program of patient navigation (PN) for colonoscopy, this comparison study evaluated the effectiveness of the PN intervention by comparing outcomes for navigated versus non-navigated patients in one of the community health clinics included in the statewide program. Outcomes measured included screening completion, adequacy of bowel preparation, missed appointments and cancellations, communication of test results, and consistency of follow-up recommendations with clinical guidelines. METHODS: The authors compared a subset of 131 patients who were navigated to a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a similar subset of 75 non-navigated patients at one endoscopy clinic. The prevalence and prevalence odds ratios were computed to measure the association between PN and each study outcome measure. RESULTS: Patients in the PN intervention group were 11.2 times more likely to complete colonoscopy than control patients (96.2% vs 69.3%; P<.001), and were 5.9 times more likely to have adequate bowel preparation (P =.010). In addition, intervention patients had no missed appointments compared with 15.6% of control patients, and were 24.8 times more likely to not have a cancellation <24 hours before their appointment (P<.001). All navigated patients and their primary care providers received test results, and all follow-up recommendations were consistent with clinical guidelines compared with 82.4% of patients in the control group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: PN appears to be effective for improving colonoscopy screening completion and quality in the disparate populations most in need of intervention. To the best of our knowledge, the results of the current study demonstrate some of the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of PN to date, and highlight its value for public health. Cancer 2017;123:3356-66. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A qualitative analysis of smokers' perceptions about lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending lung cancer screening for high risk smokers aged 55-80 years using low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. In light of these updated recommendations, there is a need to understand smokers' knowledge of and experiences with lung cancer screening in order to inform the design of patient education and tobacco cessation programs. The purpose of this study is to describe results of a qualitative study examining smokers' perceptions around lung cancer screening tests. METHODS: In 2009, prior to the release of the updated USPSTF recommendations, we conducted 12 120-min, gender-specific focus groups with 105 current smokers in Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. Focus group facilitators asked participants about their experience with three lung cancer screening tests, including CT scan, chest x-ray, and sputum cytology. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Participants were 41-67 years-old, with a mean smoking history of 38.9 pack-years. Overall, 34.3% would meet the USPSTF's current eligibility criteria for screening. Most participants were unaware of all three lung cancer screening tests. The few participants who had been screened recalled limited information about the test. Nevertheless, many participants expressed a strong desire to pursue lung cancer screening. Using the social ecological model for health promotion, we identified potential barriers to lung cancer screening at the 1) health care system level (cost of procedure, confusion around results), 2) cultural level (fatalistic beliefs, distrust of medical system), and 3) individual level (lack of knowledge, denial of risk, concerns about the procedure). Although this study was conducted prior to the updated USPSTF recommendations, these findings provide a baseline for future studies examining smokers' perceptions of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: We recommend clear and patient-friendly educational tools to improve patient understanding of screening risks and benefits and the use of best practices to help smokers quit. Further qualitative studies are needed to assess changes in smokers' perceptions as lung cancer screening with CT scan becomes more widely used in community practice.

Using Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Cancer Screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

CONTEXT: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides cancer screening to low-income, un-, and underinsured women through more than 11 000 primary care clinics. The program is well-positioned to work with health systems to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase screening among all women. OBJECTIVE: To collect baseline data on EBI use, evaluation of EBIs, and related training needs among NBCCEDP grantees. DESIGN: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a Web-based survey in late 2013 among NBCCEDP grantees for the period July 2012 to June 2013. This was the first systematic assessment of EBIs among NBCCEDP grantees. SETTING: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's NBCCEDP. PARTICIPANTS: Primarily program directors/coordinators for all 67 NBCCEDP grantees. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data captured were used to assess implementation of 5 EBIs, their evaluation, and related training needs. Frequencies and proportions were determined. Cluster analysis identified grantees with similar patterns of EBI use for NBCCEDP clients and providers. RESULTS: On average, 4.1 of 5 EBIs were implemented per grantee for NBCCEDP clients and providers. Four clusters were identified including "high overall EBI users," "high provider EBI users," "high EBI users with no provider assessment and feedback," and "high client EBI users." Only 1.8 EBIs were implemented, on average, with non-NBCCEDP clients and providers. Fewer than half (n = 32, 47.8%) of grantees conducted process or outcome evaluation of 1 or more EBIs. Overall, 47.6% of grantees reported high or medium training needs for client-oriented EBIs and 54.3% for provider-oriented EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: The NBCCEDP grantees are implementing EBIs extensively with clients and providers. Increased EBI use among non-NBCCEDP clients/providers is needed to extend the NBCCEDP's reach and impact. Grantee training and technical assistance is necessary across EBIs. In addition, grantees' use of process and outcome evaluation of EBI implementation must be increased to inform effective program implementation.

Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners often require training and technical assistance to build their capacity to select, adapt, and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to promote CRC screening to increase population-level screening. This study identified the training and technical assistance (TA) needs and preferences for training related to the implementation of EBIs among CRCCP grantees. METHODS: Twenty-nine CRCCP grantees completed an online survey about their screening activities, training and technical assistance in 2012. They rated desire for training on various evidence-based strategies to increase cancer screening, evidence-based competencies, and program management topics. They also reported preferences for training formats and facilitators and barriers to trainings. RESULTS: Many CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding finding EBIs, assessing organizational capacity, implementing selected EBIs, and conducting process and outcome evaluations. Other desired training topics reported with higher frequency were partnership development and data collection/evaluation. Grantees preferred training formats that were interactive such as on-site trainings, webinars or expert consultants. CONCLUSIONS: Public health organizations need greater supports for adopting evidence-based interventions, working with organizational-level change, partnership development and data management. Future capacity building efforts for the adoption of EBIs should focus on systems or provider level interventions and key processes for health promotion and should be delivered in a variety of ways to assist local organizations in cancer prevention and control.

A First Look at Gender Inequality as a Societal Risk Factor for Dating Violence.

INTRODUCTION: One of ten U.S. high school students is a victim of adolescent dating violence (ADV). Understanding ADV risk factors guides prevention efforts; however, research examining community- and societal-level risk factors is scant. Societal gender inequality is a known risk factor for violence against women, but has yet to be explored in relation to ADV. This study aims to determine whether the Gender Inequality Index (GII) correlates with levels of physical and sexual ADV victimization across U.S. states. METHODS: State-representative prevalence rates of self-reported physical and sexual ADV victimization were obtained from the 2013 Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The state GII includes five indicators: (1) maternal mortality; (2) adolescent birth rate; (3) government representation; (4) educational attainment; and (5) labor force participation. Pearson correlation coefficients determined the association between physical and sexual ADV victimization, the GII, and GII indicators. Analyses were conducted in August 2014. RESULTS: Among U.S. states, the prevalence of physical ADV victimization in 2013 ranged from 7.0% to 14.8%, and the prevalence of sexual ADV victimization ranged from 7.8% to 13.8%. The GII was significantly associated with the state prevalence of female physical ADV victimization (r=0.48, p<0.01) but not female sexual ADV victimization. Neither physical nor sexual male ADV victimization was associated with the GII. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study suggests that gender inequality may be a societal-level risk factor for female physical ADV victimization. As ADV prevention strategies are implemented at the state level, further research examining the effect of gender inequality on ADV is needed.

The prevalence of very frequent physical fighting among boys and girls in 27 countries and cities: regional and gender differences.

OBJECTIVE: Using nationally representative data, this study examined the prevalence of very frequent physical fighting (≥12 times per year) among youth in 27 countries and cities. Frequent physical fighting has rarely been reported in the previous literature despite the implications for research and practice. METHODS: Analyses were based on the Global School-based Student Health Survey (2003-2008) and the 2009 US Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Multinomial regression analyses were conducted to determine gender differences in frequent fighting. Countries were categorized into five regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, and the United States), and one-way ANOVA tests were used to determine regional differences. RESULTS: The prevalence of frequent fighting was highest in Zambia (7.7%) and lowest in Myanmar (0.5%). Gender differences were found in 20 countries, with boys being more likely to report frequent fighting than girls. The prevalence of frequent fighting varied by region (F(3,22) = 4.78, P = .01), with the Eastern Mediterranean having a significantly higher prevalence of frequent fighting than Asia (P < .01). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of frequent fighting varies by gender in many countries and varies across world regions. More cross-national research is needed to better understand the sociocultural context of frequent fighting and to inform youth violence prevention efforts.

Serious Violence Victimization and Perpetration among Youth Living in the Slums of Kampala, Uganda.

INTRODUCTION: Violence among youth is a major public health issue globally. Despite these concerns, youth violence surveillance and prevention research are either scarce or non-existent, particularly in developing regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively determine the prevalence of violence involving weapons in a convenience sample of service-seeking youth in Kampala. Moreover, the study will seek to determine the overlap between violence victimization and perpetration among these youth and the potentially shared risk factors for these experiences. METHODS: We conducted this study of youth in May and June of 2011 to quantify and describe high-risk behaviors and exposures in a convenience sample (N=457) of urban youth, 14-24 years of age, living on the streets or in the slums and who were participating in a Uganda Youth Development Link drop-in center for disadvantaged street youth. We computed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to determine associations between psychosocial factors and violence victimization and perpetration. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of reporting violence victimization involving a weapon was 36%, and violence perpetration with a weapon was 19%. In terms of the overlap between victimization and perpetration, 16.6% of youth (11.6% of boys and 24.1% of girls) reported both. In multivariate analyses, parental neglect due to alcohol use (Adj.OR=2.28;95%CI: 1.12-4.62) and sadness (Adj.OR=4.36 ;95%CI: 1.81-10.53) were the statistically significant correlates of victimization only. Reporting hunger (Adj.OR=2.87 ;95%CI:1.30-6.33), any drunkenness (Adj.OR=2.35 ;95%CI:1.12-4.92) and any drug use (Adj.OR=3.02 ;95%CI:1.16-7.82) were significantly associated with both perpetration and victimization. CONCLUSION: The findings underscore the differential experiences associated with victimization and perpetration of violence involving weapons among these vulnerable youth. In particular, reporting hunger, drunkenness and drug use were specifically associated with victimization and perpetration. These are all modifiable risk factors that can be prevented. It is clear that these vulnerable youth are in need of additional services and guidance to ameliorate their adverse childhood experiences, current health risk behaviors and disadvantaged living context.