Checkup Visits in Adult Federally Qualified Health Center Patients: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Checkup visits (i.e., general health checks) can increase preventive service completion and lead to improved treatment of new chronic illnesses. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, preventive service completion decreased in many groups that receive care in safety net settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine potential benefits associated with checkups in federally qualified health center (FQHC) patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study, from March 2018 to February 2022. PATIENTS: Adults at seven FQHCs in Illinois. INTERVENTIONS: Checkups during a two-year Baseline (i.e., pre-COVID-19) period and two-year COVID-19 period. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was COVID-19 period checkup completion. Secondary outcomes were: mammography completion; new diagnoses of four common chronic illnesses (hypertension, diabetes, depression, or high cholesterol), and; initiation of chronic illness medications. KEY RESULTS: Among 106,114 included patients, race/ethnicity was most commonly Latino/Hispanic (42.1%) or non-Hispanic Black (30.2%). Most patients had Medicaid coverage (40.4%) or were uninsured (33.9%). While 21.0% of patients completed a checkup during Baseline, only 15.3% did so during the COVID-19 period. In multivariable regression analysis, private insurance (versus Medicaid) was positively associated with COVID-19 period checkup completion (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 1.10-1.19), while non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (versus Latino/Hispanic) was inversely associated with checkup completion (aRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93). In secondary outcome analysis, COVID-19 period checkup completion was associated with 61% greater probability of mammography (aRR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.52-1.71), and significantly higher probability of diagnosis, and treatment initiation, for all four chronic illnesses. In exploratory interaction analysis, checkup completion was more modestly associated with diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and high cholesterol in some younger age groups (versus age ≥ 65). CONCLUSIONS: In this large FQHC cohort, checkup completion markedly decreased during the pandemic. Checkup completion was associated with preventive service completion, chronic illness detection, and initiation of chronic illness treatment.

Association of primary care visit length with outpatient utilization, continuity, and care processes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how variation in the scheduled length of primary care visits can impact patients' patterns of health care utilization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how the scheduled length of in-person visits with primary care physicians (PCPs) was associated with PCP and patient characteristics, outpatient utilization, and preventive care receipt. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined data from a large American academic health system. PCP visit length template was defined as either 15- and 30-min scheduled appointments (i.e. 15/30), or 20- and 40-min scheduled appointments (i.e. 20/40). RESULTS: Of 222 included PCPs, 85 (38.3%) used the 15/30 template and 137 (61.7%) used the 20/40 template. The 15/30 group had higher proportions of male (49.4%, vs. 35.8% in the 20/40 group) and family medicine (37.6% vs. 21.2%) physicians. In adjusted patient-level analysis (N = 238,806), having a 15/30 PCP was associated with 9% more primary care visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.14), and 8% fewer specialty care visits (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). PCP visit length template was not associated with significant differences in obstetrics/gynaecology visits, continuity of care, or preventive care receipt. In interaction analyses, having a 15/30 PCP was associated with additional primary care visits among non-Hispanic White patients (IRR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.04-1.16) but not among non-Hispanic Black patients. CONCLUSION: PCPs' choices about the scheduled length of in-person visits may impact their patients' specialty care use, and have varying impacts across different racial/ethnic groups.

General Health Checks in Adult Primary Care: A Review.

Importance: General health checks, also known as general medical examinations, periodic health evaluations, checkups, routine visits, or wellness visits, are commonly performed in adult primary care to identify and prevent disease. Although general health checks are often expected and advocated by patients, clinicians, insurers, and health systems, others question their value. Observations: Randomized trials and observational studies with control groups reported in prior systematic reviews and an updated literature review through March 2021 were included. Among 19 randomized trials (906 to 59 616 participants; follow-up, 1 to 30 years), 5 evaluated a single general health check, 7 evaluated annual health checks, 1 evaluated biannual checks, and 6 evaluated health checks delivered at other frequencies. Twelve of 13 observational studies (240 to 471 415 participants; follow-up, cross-sectional to 5 years) evaluated a single general health check. General health checks were generally not associated with decreased mortality, cardiovascular events, or cardiovascular disease incidence. For example, in the South-East London Screening Study (n = 7229), adults aged 40 to 64 years who were invited to 2 health checks over 2 years, compared with adults not invited to screening, experienced no 8-year mortality benefit (6% vs 5%). General health checks were associated with increased detection of chronic diseases, such as depression and hypertension; moderate improvements in controlling risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol; increased clinical preventive service uptake, such as colorectal and cervical cancer screening; and improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life and self-rated health. In the Danish Check-In Study (n = 1104), more patients randomized to receive to a single health check, compared with those randomized to receive usual care, received a new antidepressant prescription over 1 year (5% vs 2%; P = .007). In a propensity score-matched analysis (n = 8917), a higher percentage of patients who attended a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit, compared with those who did not, underwent colorectal cancer screening (69% vs 60%; P < .01). General health checks were sometimes associated with modest improvements in health behaviors such as physical activity and diet. In the OXCHECK trial (n = 4121), fewer patients randomized to receive annual health checks, compared with those not randomized to receive health checks, exercised less than once per month (68% vs 71%; difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.5%-6.1%]). Potential adverse effects in individual studies included an increased risk of stroke and increased mortality attributed to increased completion of advance directives. Conclusions and Relevance: General health checks were not associated with reduced mortality or cardiovascular events, but were associated with increased chronic disease recognition and treatment, risk factor control, preventive service uptake, and improved patient-reported outcomes. Primary care teams may reasonably offer general health checks, especially for groups at high risk of overdue preventive services, uncontrolled risk factors, low self-rated health, or poor connection or inadequate access to primary care.

Effects of 2 Forms of Practice Facilitation on Cardiovascular Prevention in Primary Care: A Practice-randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective quality improvement (QI) strategies are needed for small practices. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare practice facilitation implementing point-of-care (POC) QI strategies alone versus facilitation implementing point-of-care plus population management (POC+PM) strategies on preventive cardiovascular care. DESIGN: Two arm, practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study. PARTICIPANTS: Small and mid-sized primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practices worked with facilitators on QI for 12 months to implement POC or POC+PM strategies. MEASURES: Proportion of eligible patients in a practice meeting "ABCS" measures: (Aspirin) Aspirin/antiplatelet therapy for ischemic vascular disease, (Blood pressure) Controlling High Blood Pressure, (Cholesterol) Statin Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease, and (Smoking) Tobacco Use: Screening and Cessation Intervention, and the Change Process Capability Questionnaire. Measurements were performed at baseline, 12, and 18 months. RESULTS: A total of 226 practices were randomized, 179 contributed follow-up data. The mean proportion of patients meeting each performance measure was greater at 12 months compared with baseline: Aspirin 0.04 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.06), Blood pressure 0.04 (0.02-0.06), Cholesterol 0.05 (0.03-0.07), Smoking 0.05 (0.02-0.07); P<0.001 for each. Improvements were sustained at 18 months. At 12 months, baseline-adjusted difference-in-differences in proportions for the POC+PM arm versus POC was: Aspirin 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.05), Blood pressure -0.01 (-0.04 to 0.03), Cholesterol 0.03 (0.00-0.07), and Smoking 0.02 (-0.02 to 0.06); P>0.05 for all. Change Process Capability Questionnaire improved slightly, mean change 0.30 (0.09-0.51) but did not significantly differ across arms. CONCLUSION: Facilitator-led QI promoting population management approaches plus POC improvement strategies was not clearly superior to POC strategies alone.

Using Electronic Health Records to Measure Quality Improvement Efforts: Findings from a Large Practice Facilitation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Federal incentives for electronic health record (EHR) use typically require quality measure reporting over calendar year or 90-day periods. However, required reporting periods may not align with time frames of real-world quality improvement (QI) efforts. This study described primary care practices' ability to obtain measures with reporting periods aligning with a large QI initiative. METHODS: Researchers conducted a substudy of a randomized trial testing practice facilitation strategies for preventive cardiovascular care. Three quality measures (aspirin for ischemic vascular disease; blood pressure control for hypertension; smoking screening/cessation) were collected quarterly over one year. The primary outcome was a binary indicator of whether a practice facilitator obtained all three measures with "rolling 12-month" reporting periods (that is, the year preceding each study quarter). RESULTS: The study included 107 practices, 63 (58.9%) of which met the primary outcome of obtaining all measures with rolling 12-month reporting periods. Smaller practices were less likely to meet the primary outcome (p < 0.001). Practices used 11 different EHRs, 3 of which were unable to consistently produce rolling 12-month measures; at 33 practices (30.8%) using these 3 EHRs, facilitators met a secondary outcome of obtaining prior calendar year and rolling 3-month measures. Facilitators reported barriers to data collection such as practices lacking optional EHR features, and EHRs' inability to produce reporting periods across two calendar years. CONCLUSION: EHR vendors' compliance with federal reporting requirements is not necessarily sufficient to support real-world QI work. Improvements are needed in the flexibility and usability of EHRs' quality measurement functions, particularly for smaller practices.

Design of healthy hearts in the heartland (H3): A practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Hearts in the Heartland (H3) study is part of a nationwide effort, EvidenceNOW, seeking to better understand the ability of small primary care practices to improve "ABCS" clinical quality measures: appropriate Aspirin therapy, Blood pressure control, Cholesterol management, and Smoking cessation. H3 aimed to assess feasibility of implementing Point-of-Care (POC) or POC plus Population Management (POC + PM) quality improvement (QI) strategies to improve ABCS at practices in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. We describe the design and randomization of the H3 study. METHODS: We conducted a two-arm (1:1, POC:POC + PM), practice-randomized, comparative effectiveness study in 226 primary care practices across four "waves" of randomization with a 12-month intervention period, followed by a six-month sustainability period. Randomization controlled imbalance in nine baseline variables through a modified constrained algorithm. Among others, we used initial, unverified estimates of baseline ABCS values. RESULTS: We randomized 112 and 114 practices to POC and POC + PM arms, respectively. Randomization ensured baseline comparability for all nine key variables, including the ABCS measures indicating proportion of patients at the practice level meeting each quality measure. Median(Inner Quartile Range) values were A: 0.78(0.66-0.86) in POC arm vs. 0.77(0.63-0.86) in POC + PM arm, B: 0.64(0.53-0.73) vs. 0.64(0.53-0.75), C: 0.78(0.63-0.86) vs. 0.75(0.64-0.81), S: 0.80(0.65-0.81) vs. 0.79(0.61-0.91). DISCUSSION: Surrogate estimates for the true ABCS at baseline coupled with the unique randomization logic achieved adequate baseline balance on these outcomes. Similar practice- or cluster-randomized trials may consider adaptations of this design. Final analyses on 12- and 18-month ABCS outcomes for the H3 study are forthcoming. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Initial post: 11/05/2015; identifier: NCT02598284; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02598284?term=NCT02598284&rank=1).

Practice Facilitators' and Leaders' Perspectives on a Facilitated Quality Improvement Program.

PURPOSE: Practice facilitation is a promising approach to helping practices implement quality improvements. Our purpose was to describe practice facilitators' and practice leaders' perspectives on implementation of a practice facilitator-supported quality improvement program and describe where their perspectives aligned and diverged. METHODS: We conducted interviews with practice leaders and practice facilitators who participated in a program that included 35 improvement strategies aimed at the ABCS of heart health (aspirin use in high-risk individuals, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation). Rapid qualitative analysis was used to collect, organize, and analyze the data. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 of the 33 eligible practice leaders, and the 10 practice facilitators assigned to those practices. Practice leaders and practice facilitators both reported value in the program's ability to bring needed, high-quality resources to practices. Practice leaders appreciated being able to set the schedule for facilitation and select among the 35 interventions. According to practice facilitators, however, relying on practice leaders to set the pace of the intervention resulted in a lower level of program intensity than intended. Practice leaders preferred targeted assistance, particularly electronic health record documentation guidance and linkages to state smoking cessation programs. Practice facilitators reported that the easiest interventions were those that did not alter care practices. CONCLUSIONS: The dual perspectives of practice leaders and practice facilitators provide a more holistic picture of enablers and barriers to program implementation. There may be greater opportunities to assist small practices through simple, targeted practice facilitator-supported efforts rather than larger, comprehensive quality improvement projects.

Diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive fecal occult blood test in community health center patients.

PURPOSE: Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is a pragmatic screening option for many community health centers (CHCs), but FOBT screening programs will not reduce mortality if patients with positive results do not undergo diagnostic colonoscopy (DC). This study was conducted to investigate DC completion among CHC patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from three CHCs in the Midwest and Southwest. The primary study outcome was DC completion within 6 months of positive FOBT among adults age 50-75. Patient data was collected using automated electronic queries. Manual chart reviews were conducted if queries produced no evidence of DC. Poisson regression models described adjusted relative risks (RRs) of DC completion. RESULTS: The study included 308 patients; 63.3 % were female, 48.7 % were Spanish speakers and 35.7 % were uninsured. Based on combined query and chart review findings, 51.5 % completed DC. Spanish speakers were more likely than English speakers to complete DC [RR 1.19; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.36; P = 0.009], and DC completion was lower among patients with 0 visits than those with 1-2 visits (RR 2.81; 95% CI 1.83-4.33; P < 0.001) or ≥3 visits (RR 3.06; 95% CI 1.57-5.95; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: DC completion was low overall, which raises concerns about whether FOBT can reduce CRC mortality in practice. Further research is needed to understand whether CHC navigator programs can achieve very high DC rates. If organizations use FOBT as their primary CRC screening approach and a substantial number of patients receive positive results, both screening rates and DC rates should be measured.

Design and participant characteristics for a randomized effectiveness trial of an intensive lifestyle intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in adults with type 2 diabetes: The I-D-HEALTH study.

Intervening in Diabetes with Healthy Eating, Activity and Linkages To Healthcare (I-D-HEALTH) is a community-based randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of a group-based adaption of the Look AHEAD intensive lifestyle intervention. Most potentially eligible patients were identified through electronic medical record queries or referral to a diabetes resource hub. Trial enrollees had a usual source of primary care, elevated body mass index (BMI) and type 2 diabetes. I-D-HEALTH participants were randomized to either standard care alone or standard care plus free-of-charge access to a group-based lifestyle intervention (GLI) offered by the YMCA. GLI participation was encouraged, but not required, for the latter group. The primary outcome is percent weight change over 6, 12 and 24months. Secondary outcomes include direct intervention costs and direct medical and non-medical expenditures, as well as changes in systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c and cholesterol. Among 331 I-D-HEALTH participants, 167 were randomized to standard care and 164 to GLI. The mean age (±standard deviation) in each group was 57.1years (±12.2) and 57.6years (±10.5), respectively. Mean BMI was 34.9kg/m(2) (±7.3) among standard care participants and 36.2kg/m(2) (±7.8) among GLI participants. In both groups, approximately one third of participants were non-Hispanic Whites. We detected no significant differences between groups in mean systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c or total cholesterol (P >0.05 for all characteristics above). The I-D-HEALTH study enrolled a diverse sample of adults with diabetes and offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of offering a community-based intensive lifestyle intervention.

Procedure Delays and Time of Day Are Not Associated With Reductions in Quality of Screening Colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been conflicting results from studies to determine whether factors unrelated to endoscopist skill, such as fatigue, affect the quality of screening colonoscopy. We studied the effects of human and system factors on screening colonoscopy withdrawal time and likelihood of detecting an adenoma in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of operation and quality improvement data in colonoscopies performed at single academic medical center from November 2012 through February 2014. We collected data from the Northwestern Medicine Enterprise Data Warehouse on endoscopy procedure reports, patient demographics, and pathology reports of all patients undergoing endoscopy. We identified all screening colonoscopies during the study period and determined whether an adenoma was identified in each screening colonoscopy procedure. Our study included data from 7004 screening colonoscopies of patients 50-75 years old performed by endoscopists who performed at least 100 screening colonoscopies during the study period (n = 18). RESULTS: Approximately 27% of procedures began on time; the median colonoscope insertion time was 5.9 minutes (interquartile range, 4.0-8.6). In multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for covariates and endoscopist-level clustering, adenoma detection was not associated with procedure delay (P = .48), hour of day (P = .40), or performing the second of 2 colonoscopy blocks in 1 day (P = .88). Adenoma detection was associated with insertion time overall (P = .006), but there was no consistent directional relationship across insertion quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Procedure delays and measured factors associated with fatigue, including time of day and multiple procedure blocks, do not reduce the odds of detecting an adenoma. Adenoma detection varies widely among providers, so efforts to improve adenoma detection should focus mainly on optimizing physician skill.

Outreach for Annual Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Budget Impact Analysis for Community Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is an attractive approach for colorectal cancer screening at community health centers. This budget impact analysis investigated benefits and costs of FIT outreach-with FIT kits mailed to patients, followed by reminders and phone calls-compared with point-of-care (POC) strategies. METHODS: Five screening and cost outcomes were simulated over 1 year at a "base case" community health center serving 1000 screening-eligible patients: (1) FIT completion among patients due for screening; (2) proportion up-to-date on screening; (3) cost per patient due for screening; (4) cost per completed FIT; and (5) total organizational cost. Uncertainty analysis investigated potential savings from optimizing staff workflows during FIT outreach. Data were collected in 2012-2014, with analysis conducted 2014-2015. RESULTS: Using POC strategies, 24.0% of patients due for screening completed FIT, versus 42.4% under outreach (18.4% absolute difference). When calculations included patients up-to-date on screening from prior colonoscopy, 41.7% were up-to-date via POC, versus 55.8% for outreach (14.1% absolute difference). POC cost $4.93 per patient, versus $30.43 for outreach ($25.50 difference). Cost per patient screened was $20.60 for POC and $71.84 for outreach ($51.24 difference). Total organizational cost was $3,779 for POC distribution and $23,315 for outreach ($19,536 difference). Outreach costs decreased by approximately one fourth under optimized workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach is an effective, practical, relatively low-cost strategy; costs could be reduced further by optimizing staff workflows. Despite its value, outreach costs more than POC distribution and may be difficult for community health centers to implement under current payment models.

Two-year follow-up of the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers.

PURPOSE: We previously found that a multifaceted outreach intervention achieved 82 % annual adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). This study assessed adherence to FOBT after a second outreach. METHODS: We followed 225 patients in community health centers in Chicago, Illinois, who were randomized to the intervention group. Our primary analysis focused on 124 patients who completed FOBT during the first outreach and were due again for annual FOBT; 90% were Latino, 87% preferred to speak Spanish, and 77% were uninsured. Second outreach consisted of (1) a mailed reminder letter, a free fecal immunochemical test (FIT) with postage-paid return envelope, (2) automated phone and text messages, (3) automated reminders 2 weeks later if the FIT was not returned, and (4) a telephone call after 3 months. Our main outcome was completion of FIT within 6 months of the due date. We also analyzed the proportion of the original 225 patients who were fully screened for CRC over the 2-year study period. RESULTS: A total of 88.7% of patients completed a FIT within 6 months of their second outreach. Over the 2 years since the first outreach, 71.6% of the 225 patients assigned to the intervention group were fully up to date on CRC screening, another 11.1% had been screened suboptimally, and 17.3% were inadequately screened or not screened. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to achieve high rates of CRC screening over a 2-year period for vulnerable populations using outreach with FIT as a primary strategy.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates at Community Health Centers that Use Electronic Health Records: A Cross Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to validate use of electronic health record (EHR) data for measuring colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates at community health centers (CHCs). METHODS: Electronic health records were queried to assess screening via colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in 2011. RESULTS: Multiple iterations were required to maximize query accuracy. Manual chart reviews, stratified by screening modality, confirmed query results for 112 of 113 (99.1%) reviewed colonoscopies, 110 of 110 (100%) reviewed FOBTs, and 111 of 120 (92.5%) unscreened patients. At participating CHCs, CRC screening rates ranged from 9.7% to 67.2% (median, 30.6%). Adherence to annual FOBT ranged from 3.3% to 59.0% (median, 18.6%). Most screening was done by colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening varies substantially across CHCs. Electronic health record data can validly measure CRC screening, but repeated assessments of programming accuracy are required. Community health centers may need support to measure quality using EHR data and increase screening.

Comparative Effectiveness of Multifaceted Outreach to Initiate Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low among vulnerable populations. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are one screening modality with few barriers. Studies have shown that outreach can improve CRC screening, but little is known about its effectiveness among individuals with no CRC screening history. We sought to determine whether outreach increases FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history compared to usual care. METHODS: This study was a patient-level randomized controlled trial, including 420 patients who had never completed CRC screening and were eligible for FIT; 66% were female, 62.1% were Latino, and 70.7% were uninsured. The main outcome measure was FIT completion within 6 months of the randomization date. We assessed FIT completion at different time points corresponding to receipt of outreach components. All analyses were re-run with 12-month data. RESULTS: Patients who received outreach were more likely to complete FIT than those in usual care (36.7% vs. 14.8%; p < 0.001). FIT completion was more common among patients with increased clinic visits. The difference in FIT completion between the outreach and usual care groups decreased over time. DISCUSSION: The intervention improved FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history. However, the intervention was less effective than in a previous trial targeting patients due for repeat screening. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for improving CRC screening among this hard-to-reach group.

Colorectal cancer screening at community health centers: A survey of clinicians' attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates remain lower among some racial/ethnic groups and individuals with low income or educational attainment who are often cared for within community health centers (CHCs). We surveyed clinicians in a network of CHCs to understand their attitudes, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to CRC screening. METHODS: A clinician survey was conducted in 2013 within the Community Health Applied Research Network (CHARN). RESULTS: 180 clinicians completed the survey (47.9% response rate). Participants had an average of 11.5 (SD: 9.8) years in practice, 62% were female, and 57% were physicians. The majority of respondents somewhat agreed (30.2%) or strongly agreed (57.5%) that colonoscopy was the best screening test. However, only 15.8% of respondents strongly agreed and 32.2% somewhat agreed that colonoscopy was readily available for their patients. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), a type of fecal occult blood test (FOBT), was viewed less favorably; 24.6% rated FIT as very effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are no data showing that screening colonoscopy is superior to FIT, CHC clinicians believe colonoscopy is the best CRC screening test for their patients, despite the high prevalence of financial barriers to colonoscopy. These attitudes could be due to lack of knowledge about the evidence supporting long-term benefits of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), lack of awareness about the improved test characteristics of FIT compared to older guaiac-based FOBT, or the absence of systems to ensure adherence to regular FOBT screening. Interventions to improve CRC screening at CHCs must address clinicians' negative attitudes towards FIT.

Understanding current racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the United States: the contribution of socioeconomic status and access to care.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have shown racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but have not provided a full national picture of disparities across all major racial/ethnic groups. PURPOSE: To provide a more complete, up-to-date picture of racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening and contributing socioeconomic and access barriers. METHODS: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 2010 were analyzed in 2013. Hispanic/Latino participants were stratified by preferred language (Hispanic-English versus Hispanic-Spanish). Non-Hispanics were categorized as White, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or American Indian/Alaska Native. Sequential regression models estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) and the degree to which SES and access to care explained disparities. RESULTS: Overall, 59.6% reported being up-to-date on CRC screening. Self-reported CRC screening was highest in the White (62.0%) racial/ethnic group; followed by Black (59.0%); Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (54.6%); Hispanic-English (52.5%); American Indian/Alaska Native (49.5%); Asian (47.2%); and Hispanic-Spanish (30.6%) groups. Adjustment for SES and access partially explained disparities between Whites and Hispanic-Spanish (final relative risk [RR]=0.76, 95% CI=0.69, 0.83); Hispanic-English (RR=0.94, 95% CI=0.91, 0.98); and American Indian/Alaska Native (RR=0.91, 95% CI=0.85, 0.97) groups. The RR of screening among Asians was unchanged after adjustment for SES and access (0.78, p<0.001). After full adjustment, screening rates were not significantly different among Whites, Blacks, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders. CONCLUSIONS: Large racial/ethnic disparities in CRC screening persist, including substantial differences between English-speaking versus Spanish-speaking Hispanics. Disparities are only partially explained by SES and access to care. Future studies should explore the low rate of screening among Asians and how it varies by racial/ethnic subgroup and language.

Adherence to repeat fecal occult blood testing in an urban community health center network.

Annual fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) has the potential to reduce colorectal cancer mortality, but in practice it is challenging to complete FOBT every year. Repeat FOBT adherence may be especially low in community health center (CHC) settings, where many patients face barriers to annual FOBT completion. We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis to investigate adherence to annual FOBT in an urban CHC network that serves a predominantly Spanish-speaking, uninsured adult patient population. This study used data from the two-year period between January 2010 and December 2011, and included adults aged 50-74 who completed a screening FOBT with a negative result during the first 6 months of 2010. We examined whether each patient completed a second FOBT between 9 and 18 months after the initial negative FOBT, and tested whether repeat FOBT adherence was associated with patient characteristics or the number of clinic visits after the initial negative FOBT. Only 69 of 281 included patients completed repeat FOBT (24.6 % adherence), and none of 62 patients (0 %) with 0 clinic visits completed repeat FOBT. We detected no significant differences in adherence by age, sex, preferred language, insurance status, or number of chronic conditions. In multivariable regression, the adjusted relative risk of repeat FOBT was 1.66 (95 % CI 1.09-2.54; p = 0.02) among patients with 3 or more clinic visits (referent: patients with 1-2 visits). The observed low rate of adherence greatly diminishes the effectiveness of FOBT in reducing CRC mortality. Findings demonstrate the need for systems-based interventions that increase adherence without requiring face-to-face encounters.