Costs and outcomes of colorectal cancer screening program in Isfahan, Iran.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most prevalent gastrointestinal cancers in Iran i.e., the fourth and the second prevalent cancer among Iranian males and females, respectively. A routine screening program is effective in the early detection of disease which can reduce the cancer burden both for individuals and society. In 2015, Iran's Package of Essential Non- communicable Diseases program had been piloted in Shahreza city in Isfahan province. Colorectal cancer screening for the population aged 50-70 was a part of this program. So far, there was no study about the cost and outcomes of that program. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the costs and outcomes of colorectal cancer screening done from 2016 to 2019 in Shahreza. METHODS: This cost-outcome description study used the data of 19,392 individuals who were 50-70 years old experienced a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and had an electronic health record. All direct costs including personnel, building space, equipment, training, etc. were extracted from the financial documents existing in the Isfahan province Health Center. The outcome was defined as positive FIT, detection of adenoma or malignancy as recorded in the E-integrated health system. RESULTS: The results of this study indicated that the direct costs of the colorectal cancer screening program during the years 2016-2019 were 7,368,707,574 Rials (321,029 PPP$) in Shahreza, Isfahan province. These costs resulted in identifying 821 people with a positive FIT test, of those 367 individuals were undergone colonoscopy. Of whom 8 cases of colorectal cancer, and 151 cases with polyps were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: This study showed that by paying a small amount of 320 thousand international dollars we could prevent 151 cases of polyps to be progressed to colorectal cancer,resulting in a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence.

The Cost of Guideline Adherence: A Multicenter Analysis of the Financial Implications of Adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force Polypectomy Guidelines.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to determine the financial impact of adopting the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) polypectomy guidelines on physician reimbursement and disposable equipment costs for gastroenterologists in the academic medical center and community practice settings. BACKGROUND: In 2020, USMSTF guidelines on polypectomy were introduced with a strong recommendation for cold snare rather than cold forceps technique for removing diminutive and small polyps. Polypectomy with snare technique reimburses physicians at a higher rate compared with cold forceps and also requires different disposable equipment. The financial implications of adopting these guidelines is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients that underwent screening colonoscopy where polypectomy was performed at an academic medical center (Loma Linda University Medical Center) and community practice medical center (Ascension Providence Hospital) between July 2018 and July 2019 were identified. The polypectomy technique performed during each procedure was determined (forceps alone, snare alone, forceps plus snare) along with the number and size of polyps as well as disposable equipment. Actual and projected provider reimbursement and disposable equipment costs were determined based on applying the new polypectomy guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 1167 patients underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy. Adhering to new guidelines would increase estimated physician reimbursement by 5.6% and 12.5% at academic and community practice sites, respectively. The mean increase in physician reimbursement per procedure was significantly higher at community practice compared with the academic setting ($29.50 vs. $14.13, P <0.00001). The mean increase in disposable equipment cost per procedure was significantly higher at the community practice setting ($6.11 vs. $1.97, P <0.00001). CONCLUSION: Adopting new polypectomy guidelines will increase physician reimbursement and equipment costs when colonoscopy with polypectomy is performed.

Change in Colorectal Cancer Tests Submitted for Reimbursement in Switzerland 2012-2018: Evidence from Claims Data of a Large Insurance.

Objectives: Guidelines recommend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colonoscopy. In 2013, Switzerland introduced reimbursement of CRC screening by mandatory health insurance for 50-69-years-olds, after they met their deductible. We hypothesized that the 2013 reimbursement policy increased testing rate. Methods: In claims data from a Swiss insurance, we determined yearly CRC testing rate among 50-75-year-olds (2012-2018) and the association with socio-demographic, insurance-, and health-related covariates with multivariate-adjusted logistic regression models. We tested for interaction of age (50-69/70-75) on testing rate over time. Results: Among insurees (2012:355'683; 2018:348'526), yearly CRC testing rate increased from 2012 to 2018 (overall: 8.1-9.9%; colonoscopy: 5.0-7.6%; FOBT: 3.1-2.3%). Odds ratio (OR) were higher for 70-75-year-olds (2012: 1.16, 95%CI 1.13-1.20; 2018: 1.05, 95%CI 1.02-1.08). Deductible interacted with changes in testing rate over time (p < 0.001). The increase in testing rate was proportionally higher among 50-69-years-olds than 70-75-year-olds over the years. Conclusions: CRC testing rate in Switzerland increased from 2012 to 2018, particularly among 50-69-years-olds, the target population of the 2013 law. Future studies should explore the effect of encouraging FOBT or waiving deductible.

Factors predicting improved compliance towards colonoscopy in individuals with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

OBJECTIVES: Follow-up colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in any colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme is integral. However, many individuals who had a positive FIT declined colonoscopy subsequently. This study aims to uncover the predictors on completion of colonoscopy using the Health Belief Model (HBM) between individuals who complete and those who did not after a positive FIT. METHODS: A mixed-method study comprising qualitative semi-structured interviews followed by a locally validated questionnaire in Singapore was prospectively administered via telephone interview to average risk individuals with positive FIT results from a cohort of the national FIT screening database referred for follow-up colonoscopic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 394 individuals, with a median age of 66 years (range, 46-89 years), were recruited. Fifty percent completed follow-up colonoscopic evaluation and formed the "doers" group. All participants demonstrated high knowledge of symptoms of CRC and awareness and qualitative responses were aligned to the various HBM domains. Using multi-variable analysis, doers felt that medical recommendations (odds ratio [OR], 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-4.63, p = 0.01) and mainstream media publicity (OR, 2.16, 95% CI: 1.09-4.26, p = 0.026) were important. Non-doers showed positive association with perceived barriers such as cost (OR, 2.15, 95% CI: 1.10-4.20, p = 0.026) and inconvenience (OR, 3.44, 95% CI: 1.50-7.89, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Identified factors such as tackling perceived barriers, public health education and active promotion by medical physicians, family and friends could help guide subsequent interventions to improve compliance of individuals with positive FIT to undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

Optimizing Positivity Thresholds for a Risk-Adapted Screening Strategy in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Risk-adapted screening combining the Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score, fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy improved the yield of colorectal cancer screening than FIT. However, the optimal positivity thresholds of risk scoring and FIT of such a strategy warrant further investigation. METHODS: We included 3,407 participants aged 50-74 years undergoing colonoscopy from a colorectal cancer screening trial. For the risk-adapted screening strategy, subjects were referred for subsequent colonoscopy or FIT according to their risk scores. Diagnostic performance was evaluated for FIT and the risk-adapted screening method with various positivity thresholds. Furthermore, a modeled screening cohort was established to compare the yield and cost using colonoscopy, FIT, and the risk-adapted screening method in a single round of screening. RESULTS: Risk-adapted screening method had higher sensitivity for advanced neoplasm (AN) (27.6%-76.3% vs 13.8%-17.3%) but lower specificity (46.6%-90.8% vs 97.4%-98.8%) than FIT did. In a modeled screening cohort, FIT-based screening would be slightly affected because the threshold varied with a reduction of 76.0%-80.9% in AN detection and 82.0%-84.4% in cost when compared with colonoscopy. By contrast, adjusting the threshold of Asia-Pacific Colorectal Screening score from 3 to 5 points for risk-adapted screening varied from an increase of 12.6%-14.1% to a decrease of 55.6%-60.1% in AN detection, with the reduction of cost from 4.2%-5.3% rising to 66.4%-68.5%. DISCUSSION: With an appropriate positivity threshold tailored to clinical practice, the risk-adapted screening could save colonoscopy resources and cost compared with the colonoscopy-only and FIT-only strategies.

The Costs and Benefits of Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based On Phenotypic and Genetic Risk: A Health Economic Analysis.

Population-based screening for colorectal cancer is an effective and cost-effective way of reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Many genetic and phenotypic risk factors for colorectal cancer have been identified, leading to development of colorectal cancer risk scores with varying discrimination. However, these are not currently used by population screening programs. We performed an economic analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness, clinical outcomes, and resource impact of using risk-stratification based on phenotypic and genetic risk, taking a UK National Health Service perspective. Biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT), starting at an age determined through risk-assessment at age 40, was compared with FIT screening starting at a fixed age for all individuals. Compared with inviting everyone from age 60, using a risk score with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.721 to determine FIT screening start age, produces 418 QALYs, costs £247,000, and results in 218 fewer colorectal cancer cases and 156 fewer colorectal cancer deaths per 100,000 people, with similar FIT screening invites. There is 96% probability that risk-stratification is cost-effective, with net monetary benefit (based on £20,000 per QALY threshold) estimated at £8.1 million per 100,000 people. The maximum that could be spent on risk-assessment and still be cost-effective is £114 per person. Lower benefits are produced with lower discrimination risk scores, lower mean screening start age, or higher FIT thresholds. Risk-stratified screening benefits men more than women. Using risk to determine FIT screening start age could improve the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening without using significant additional screening resources. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Colorectal cancer screening is essential for early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer, but implementation is often limited by resource constraints. This work shows that risk-stratification using genetic and phenotypic risk could improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening programs, without using substantially more screening resources than are currently available.

Cost-Effectiveness of Multitarget Stool DNA Testing vs Colonoscopy or Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Alaska Native People.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of multitarget stool DNA testing (MT-sDNA) compared with colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for Alaska Native adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to evaluate the 3 screening test effects over 40 years. Outcomes included colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality, costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The study incorporated updated evidence on screening test performance and adherence and was conducted from December 15, 2016, through November 6, 2019. RESULTS: With perfect adherence, CRC incidence was reduced by 52% (95% CI, 46% to 56%) using colonoscopy, 61% (95% CI, 57% to 64%) using annual FIT, and 66% (95% CI, 63% to 68%) using MT-sDNA. Compared with no screening, perfect adherence screening extends life by 0.15, 0.17, and 0.19 QALYs per person with colonoscopy, FIT, and MT-sDNA, respectively. Colonoscopy is the most expensive strategy: approximately $110 million more than MT-sDNA and $127 million more than FIT. With imperfect adherence (best case), MT-sDNA resulted in 0.12 QALYs per person vs 0.05 and 0.06 QALYs per person by FIT and colonoscopy, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses supported the base-case analysis. Under varied adherence scenarios, MT-sDNA either dominates or is cost-effective (ICERs, $1740-$75,868 per QALY saved) compared with FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Each strategy reduced costs and increased QALYs compared with no screening. Screening by MT-sDNA results in the largest QALY savings. In Markov model analysis, screening by MT-sDNA in the Alaska Native population was cost-effective compared with screening by colonoscopy and FIT for a wide range of adherence scenarios.

Gene-Specific Variation in Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Strategies for Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lynch syndrome is associated with pathogenic variants in 4 mismatch repair (MMR) genes that increase lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Guidelines recommend intensive colorectal cancer surveillance with colonoscopy every 1-2 years starting at age 25 years for all carriers of Lynch syndrome-associated variants, regardless of gene product. We constructed a simulation model to analyze the effects of different ages of colonoscopy initiation and surveillance intervals for each MMR gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost. METHODS: Using published literature, we developed a Markov simulation model of Lynch syndrome progression for patients with each MMR variant. The model simulated clinical trials of Lynch syndrome carriers, varying age of colonoscopy initiation (5-year increments from 25-40 years), and surveillance intervals (1-5 years). We assessed the optimal strategy for each gene, defined as the strategy with the highest quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Optimal surveillance for patients with pathogenic variants in the MLH1 and MSH2 genes was colonoscopy starting at age 25 years, with 1- to 2-year surveillance intervals. Initiating colonoscopy at age 35 and 40 years, with 3-year intervals, was cost-effective for patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 or PMS2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a simulation model to select optimal surveillance starting ages and intervals for patients with Lynch syndrome based on MMR variant. The model supports recommendations for intensive surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MLH1 or MSH2. However, for patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants of MSH6 or PMS2, later initiation of surveillance at 35 and 40 years, respectively, and at 3-year intervals, can be considered.

Should colorectal cancer screening start at different ages for men and women? Cost-effectiveness analysis for a resource-constrained service.

BACKGROUND: Men have a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than women, but population screening currently starts at the same age for both sexes. AIM: This analysis investigates whether, in a resource-constrained setting, it would be more effective and cost-effective for men and women to start screening for CRC at different ages. METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic modeling analysis was carried out using the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel to compare sex-stratification against screening everyone from the same age, taking an English National Health Service perspective. Screening men from age 56 and women from age 60, rather than screening everyone from age 58 using a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) threshold of 120 µg/g is expected to produce an additional 0.0004 QALYs for a cost of £0.55 per person at model start (Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio = £1392), and to reduce CRC cases and mortality by 25 and 19 per 100 000 people respectively, while using a similar amount of screening resources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates a 61% probability that sex-stratification is more cost-effective than screening everyone at age 58. Similar benefits of sex-stratification are found at other FIT thresholds, but become negligible if mean screening start age is reduced to 50. CONCLUSION: Where resources are constrained and it is not feasible to screen everyone from the age of 50, starting screening earlier in men than women is likely to be more cost-effective and gain more health benefits overall than strategies where men and women start screening at the same age.

Comparing the Cost-Effectiveness of Innovative Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy and the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is underused. Innovative tests could increase screening acceptance. This study determined which of the available alternatives is most promising from a cost-effectiveness perspective. METHODS: The previously validated Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening with capsule endoscopy every 5 or 10 years, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, the multi-target stool DNA test every 1 or 3 years, and the methylated SEPT9 DNA plasma assay (mSEPT9) every 1 or 2 years. We also compared these strategies with annual FIT screening and colonoscopy screening every 10 years. Quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYG), number of colonoscopies, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were projected. We assumed a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALYG. RESULTS: Among the alternative tests, computed tomographic colonography every 5 years, annual mSEPT9, and annual multi-target stool DNA screening had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $1092, $63 253, and $214 974 per QALYG, respectively. Other screening strategies were more costly and less effective than (a combination of) these 3. Under the assumption of perfect adherence, annual mSEPT9 screening resulted in more QALYG, CRC cases averted, and CRC deaths averted than annual FIT screening but led to a high rate of colonoscopy referral (51% after 3 years, 69% after 5 years). The alternative tests were not cost-effective compared with FIT and colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that for individuals not willing to participate in FIT or colonoscopy screening, mSEPT9 is the test of choice if the high colonoscopy referral rate is acceptable to them.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy - Now on the market. What's next?

Adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in clinical medicine is revolutionizing daily practice. In the field of colonoscopy, major endoscopy manufacturers have already launched their own AI products on the market with regulatory approval in Europe and Asia. This commercialization is strongly supported by positive evidence that has been recently established through rigorously designed prospective trials and randomized controlled trials. According to some of the trials, AI tools possibly increase the adenoma detection rate by roughly 50% and contribute to a 7-20% reduction of colonoscopy-related costs. Given that reliable evidence is emerging, together with active commercialization, this seems to be a good time for us to review and discuss the current status of AI in colonoscopy from a clinical perspective. In this review, we introduce the advantages and possible drawbacks of AI tools and explore their future potential including the possibility of obtaining reimbursement.

[Results and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening program among urban residents in Zhejiang province, 2013-2018].

Objective: To analyze the results and cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program among Zhejiang urban residents so as to provide evidence for further optimization of CRC screening strategies. Methods: Based on the Cancer Screening Program in Urban China which was conducted in Zhejiang province from 2013-2018, data related to the rates on compliance and detection through the CRC screening program among the 40-74 year-old residents were analyzed. Chi-square tests were used to compare the differences among groups, and multivariate logistic regression models were applied to explore the potential risk factors. Cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was calculated by using the cost per lesion detected as the indicator. Results: Among all the 166 285 participants who completed the risk assessment questionnaire, 21 975 (13.2%) were recognized as under the high risk of CRC and 4 389 (20.0%) of them received the colonoscopy. The detection rates of CRC, advanced adenoma, and non-advance adenoma were 0.3% (11 cases), 2.7% (119 cases), and 5.2% (229 cases), respectively. Results from the multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that factors as age, gender, education level, smoking, drinking alcohol, previous fecal occult blood test (FOBT), polyp history, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with the compliance rate of colonoscopy while age, smoking and polyp history were significantly associated with the detection rate of advanced neoplasms (CRC and advanced adenoma). The costs were ï¿¥22 355.74 Yuan for every CER advanced neoplasm detection and ï¿¥264 204.18 Yuan per CRC detection, respectively. The CER decreased along with ageing. Sensitivity analysis showed that CERs were expected to decrease when the compliance rate of colonoscopy was increasing. Conclusions: The current screening program seems effective in detecting the precancerous colorectal lesions, but the relatively low compliance rate of colonoscopy restricting both the diagnostic yields and economic benefits. It is necessary to improve the awareness and acceptance of colonoscopy among the high-risk CRC population.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer screening is essential to detect and remove premalignant lesions to prevent the development of colorectal cancer. Multiple screening modalities are available, including colonoscopy and stool-based testing. Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for detection and removal of premalignant colorectal lesions. Screening guidelines by the American Cancer Society now recommend initiating screening for all average-risk adults at 45 years old. Family history of colorectal cancer, other cancers, and advanced colon polyps are strong risk factors that must be considered in order to implement earlier testing. Epidemiologic studies continue to show disparities in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality and wide variability in screening rates.

Cost-effectiveness of surveillance with CT colonography after resection of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance following colorectal cancer (CRC) resection uses optical colonoscopy (OC) to detect intraluminal disease and CT to detect extracolonic recurrence. CT colonography (CTC) might be an efficient use of resources in this situation because it allows for intraluminal and extraluminal evaluations with one test. DESIGN: We developed a simulation model to compare lifetime costs and benefits for a cohort of patients with resected CRC. Standard of care involved annual CT for 3 years and OC for years 1, 4 and every 5 years thereafter. For the CTC-based strategy, we replace CT+OC at year 1 with CTC. Patients with lesions greater than 6 mm detected by CTC underwent OC. Detection of an adenoma 10 mm or larger was followed by OC at 1 year, then every 3 years thereafter. Test characteristics and costs for CTC were derived from a clinical study. Medicare costs were used for cancer care costs as well as alternative test costs. We discounted costs and effects at 3% per year. RESULTS: For persons with resected stage III CRC, the standard-of-care strategy was more costly (US$293) and effective (2.6 averted CRC cases and 1.1 averted cancer deaths per 1000) than the CTC-based strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$55 500 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Our analysis was most sensitive to the sensitivity of CTC for detecting polyps 10 mm or larger and assumptions about disease progression. CONCLUSION: In a simulation model, we found that replacing the standard-of-care approach to postdiagnostic surveillance with a CTC-based strategy is not an efficient use of resources in most situations.

Decomposing socioeconomic disparities in the use of colonoscopy among the insured elderly population before and after the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs may significantly dampen patients' willingness to adopt preventive procedures. This is especially true for colonoscopies, which typically involved relatively high cost-sharing requirements prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation in 2011. PURPOSE: We aim to examine the effects of income-related disparities in colonoscopy use in the years prior to and immediately after the implementation of the ACA. Further, we quantify the contributions of different factors in explaining the disparities in the use of colonoscopies among elderly population with health insurance coverage. METHODS: Five cycles (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016) of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data were utilized. To examine income-related disparities in the use of CRC, individuals aged 65-75 were included, and the concentration index (CI) was calculated before and after the implementation of ACA. To identify and quantify the contribution of different factors, a decomposition analysis of CI was conducted. RESULTS: CIs decreased from 0.1935 in pre-ACA years to 0.1813 in the post-ACA years among the elderly, indicating that the disparities in the use of colonoscopy was relatively low and the disparities index declined after the implementation of ACA. Decomposition analyses showed that whereas decreases in disparities derived largely from income and educational level, higher level of income and educational attainment were major contributors to the observed disparities in colonoscopy use. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the ACA's removal of financial barriers may have contributed toward the reduction in disparities of colonoscopy use. More direct interventions, e.g., improved knowledge, better access and lower indirect cost will be helpful in improving screening among low-income and low-educational attainment households.