Correction to: Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. There is a typo in the coauthor name, it should be Franklin G. Berger.

Formative Research on Knowledge and Preferences for Stool-based Tests compared to Colonoscopy: What Patients and Providers Think.

The rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the U.S. remain below national targets, so many people at risk are not being screened. The objective of this qualitative research project was to assess patient and provider knowledge and preferences about CRC screening modalities and specifically the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) as a first line screening choice. Nine focus groups were conducted with a medically underserved patient population and qualitative interviews were administered to their medical providers. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize key findings. Both providers and patients thought that the FIT would be a good option for CRC screening both as an individual choice and for an overall program approach. The test is less expensive and therefore more readily available for patients compared to colonoscopy. Overall, there was consensus that the FIT offers a reasonably priced, simple approach to CRC screening which has broad appeal to both providers and patients. Concerns identified by patients and providers included the possibility of false positives with the FIT which could be caused by test contamination or failing to perform the test properly. Patients also described feelings of disgust toward performing the FIT and difficulties in following the instructions. Study findings indicate provider and patient support for using the FIT for CRC screening at both the individual and system-wide levels of implementation. While barriers to the use of the FIT were listed, benefits of using the FIT were perceived as positive motivators to engage previously unscreened and uninsured or under-insured individuals in CRC screening.

Sustainability of public health programs: the example of tobacco treatment services in Massachusetts.

Sustaining important public or grant-funded services after initial funding is terminated is a major public health challenge. We investigated whether tobacco treatment services previously funded within a statewide tobacco control initiative could be sustained after state funding was terminated abruptly. We found that 2 key strategies-redefining the scope of services being offered and creative use of resources-were factors that determined whether some community agencies were able to sustain services at a much higher level than others after funding was discontinued. Understanding these strategies and developing them at a time when program funding is not being threatened is likely to increase program sustainability.