Relationship of Blood Pressure, Health Behaviors, and New Diagnosis and Control of Hypertension in the BP-CHECK Study.

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month. RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, -7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.3 to -4.8]; diastolic BP, -3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.6 to -2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257.

Strategies to Increase Cervical Cancer Screening With Mailed Human Papillomavirus Self-Sampling Kits: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Optimal strategies for increasing cervical cancer screening may differ by patient screening history and health care setting. Mailing human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kits to individuals who are overdue for screening increases adherence; however, offering self-sampling kits to screening-adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of direct-mail and opt-in approaches for offering HPV self-sampling kits to individuals by cervical cancer screening history (screening-adherent and currently due, overdue, or unknown). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a US integrated health care delivery system. Individuals aged 30 to 64 years with female sex, a primary care clinician, and no hysterectomy were identified through electronic health records (EHRs) and enrolled between November 20, 2020, and January 28, 2022, with follow-up through July 29, 2022. Interventions: Individuals stratified as due (eg, at the time of randomization, these individuals have been previously screened and are due for their next screening in ≤3 months) were randomized to receive usual care (patient reminders and clinician EHR alerts [n = 3671]), education (usual care plus educational materials about screening [n = 3960]), direct mail (usual care plus educational materials and a mailed self-sampling kit [n = 1482]), or to opt in (usual care plus educational materials and the option to request a kit [n = 3956]). Individuals who were overdue for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 5488), education (n = 1408), or direct mail (n = 1415). Individuals with unknown history for screening were randomized to receive usual care (n = 2983), education (n = 3486), or to opt in (n = 3506). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was screening completion within 6 months. Primary analyses compared direct-mail or opt-in participants with individuals randomized to the education group. Results: The intention-to-treat analyses included 31 355 randomized individuals (mean [SD] age, 45.9 [10.4] years). Among those who were due for screening, compared with receiving education alone (1885 [47.6%]), screening completion was 14.1% (95% CI, 11.2%-16.9%) higher in the direct-mail group (914 [61.7%]) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.2%-5.7%) higher in the opt-in group (2020 [51.1%]). Among individuals who were overdue, screening completion was 16.9% (95% CI, 13.8%-20.0%) higher in the direct-mail group (505 [35.7%]) compared with education alone (264 [18.8%]). Among those with unknown history, screening was 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-3.9%) higher in the opt-in group (634 [18.1%]) compared with education alone (555 [15.9%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within a US health care system, direct-mail self-sampling increased cervical cancer screening by more than 14% in individuals who were due or overdue for cervical cancer screening. The opt-in approach minimally increased screening. To increase screening adherence, systems implementing HPV self-sampling should prioritize direct-mail outreach for individuals who are due or overdue for screening. For individuals with unknown screening history, testing alternative outreach approaches and additional efforts to document screening history are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04679675.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening. METHODS: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer. IMPACT: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Economic Evaluation of Mailed Home-Based Human Papillomavirus Self-sampling Kits for Cervical Cancer Screening.

Importance: Human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling addresses barriers to cervical cancer screening, and mailed self-sampling kits have been reported to increase screening uptake. International research suggests mailed kits are cost-effective in certain settings. However, the cost-effectiveness of mailing HPV self-sampling kits for increasing screening uptake has not been evaluated in the US. Objective: To conduct an economic evaluation of a mailed HPV self-sampling intervention among underscreened women enrolled in an integrated US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation involved a cost-effectiveness analysis of results from a randomized clinical trial of 19 851 women aged 30 to 64 years enrolled in a health plan from Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), a US-based integrated health care system. Women were identified through electronic medical records, and eligible participants were enrolled in a health plan for at least 3 years and 5 months, had a primary care clinician, had not received a Papanicolaou test for at least 3 years and 5 months, and had not received a hysterectomy. Enrollment occurred from February 25, 2014, to August 29, 2016, with follow-up through February 25, 2018. The current economic evaluation was conducted between August 2, 2021, and July 30, 2022. Intervention delivery costs were calculated from both the KPWA and Medicare perspectives and were based on either wellness visit or Papanicolaou test-only visit costs. Intervention: Participants in the control group received usual care, which comprised patient reminders and ad hoc outreach for screening. Participants in the intervention group received usual care plus a mailed HPV self-sampling kit. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary economic outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for increased screening uptake, defined as the incremental difference in cost (intervention group minus control group) divided by the difference in the number of participants completing screening (intervention group minus control group) within 6 months of randomization. Results: Among 19 851 women (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [9.5] years; 76.7% White), 9960 were randomized to the intervention group, and 9891 were randomized to the control group. Baseline ICERs ranged from $85.84 (95% CI, $85.68-$85.99) using KPWA wellness visits as the cost basis to $146.29 (95% CI, $146.20-$146.38) using Medicare Papanicolaou test-only visits as the cost source. Subgroups of participants aged 50 to 64 years and participants most recently overdue for screening achieved cost-effectiveness at lower levels of willingness to pay for an additional completed screening than other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, mailing HPV self-sampling kits to women overdue for cervical cancer screening was cost-effective for increased screening uptake relative to usual care. These results support mailing HPV kits as an efficient outreach strategy for increasing screening rates among eligible women in US health care systems.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. RESULTS: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. IMPACT: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Design of a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake in a U.S. healthcare system: The STEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Mailing HPV self-sampling kits to overdue individuals increases cervical cancer screening adherence; offering self-sampling to previously adherent individuals has not been evaluated in the U.S. Given heterogeneity of the U.S. health system and population, data are needed to optimize how HPV self-sampling is offered to individuals who are overdue, due after successful past screening, or have an unknown screening history. METHODS: STEP is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial set within a U.S. integrated healthcare delivery system, designed to compare different outreach approaches for offering HPV self-sampling in populations defined by prior screening behavior (previously-adherent, overdue, or unknown screening history). Over 14 months, eligible individuals were identified through electronic medical record (EMR) data and randomized to Usual Care (UC), Education (UC + educational materials about cervical cancer screening), Direct-Mail (UC + Education + a mailed self-sampling kit) or Opt-In (UC + Education + option to request a kit), depending on screening history. The primary objective is to compare screening completion by outreach approach and screening history. Secondary objectives include evaluating incremental cost-effectiveness of outreach approaches, and identifying patient preference for, and satisfaction with, HPV self-screening, and barriers to abnormal results follow-up (measured through interviews and focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The trial was designed to generate data that U.S. health systems can use to inform primary HPV screening implementation strategies that incorporate HPV self-sampling options to improve screening access, adherence, and patient satisfaction. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale and design of this pragmatic trial.

A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a CRC screening intervention on adherence to CRC screening over 9 years. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Integrated health care system in Washington state. PARTICIPANTS: Between August 2008 and November 2009, 4653 adults in a Washington state integrated health care system aged 50-74 due for CRC screening were randomized to usual care (UC; N =1163) or UC plus study interventions (interventions: N = 3490). INTERVENTIONS: Years 1 and 2: (arm 1) UC or this plus study interventions; (arm 2) mailed fecal tests or information on scheduling colonoscopy; (arm 3) mailings plus brief telephone assistance; or (arm 4) mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation. In year 3, stepped-intensity participants (arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) still eligible for screening were randomized to either stopped or continued interventions in years 3 and 5-9. MAIN MEASURES: Time in adherence to CRC testing over 9 years (covered time, primary outcome), and percent with no CRC testing in participants assigned to any intervention compared to UC only. Poisson regression models estimated incidence rate ratios for covered time, adjusting for patient characteristics and accounting for variable follow-up time. KEY RESULTS: Compared to UC, intervention participants had 21% more covered time over 9 years (57.5% vs. 69.1%; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.25, P<0.001). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time among intervention patients. Compared to UC, intervention participants were also more likely to have completed at least one CRC screening test over 9 years or until censorship (88.6% vs. 80.6%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An outreach program that included mailed fecal tests and phone follow-up led to increased adherence to CRC testing and fewer age-eligible individuals without any CRC testing over 9 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systems of Support (SOS) to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-up (SOS), NCT00697047, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00697047.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19 Infection or Hospitalization: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or affect disease severity. Prior studies have not examined risks by medication dose. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included people aged ≥18 years enrolled in a US integrated healthcare system for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020. Current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for race/ethnicity, obesity, and other covariates. RESULTS: Among 322,044 individuals, 826 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 204/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.6 per 1,000 individuals) compared with 622/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.3 per 1,000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.12). For use of <1 defined daily dose (DDD) vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.92 (95% CI 0.66-1.28); for 1 to <2 DDDs, 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.19); and for ≥2 DDDs, 0.92 (95% CI 0.72-1.18). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 26% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.98 (95% CI 0.63-1.54), and there was no association with dose. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization: a cohort study.

There are plausible mechanisms by which angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection or affect disease severity. To examine the association between these medications and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization, we conducted a retrospective cohort study within a US integrated healthcare system. Among people aged ≥18 years enrolled in the health plan for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020, current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Among 322,044 individuals, 720 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 183/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.3 per 1000 individuals) compared with 537/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.0 per 1000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.75-1.16). For use of < 1 defined daily dose vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-1.26); for 1 to < 2 defined daily doses, 0.97 (95% CI 0.71-1.31); and for ≥2 defined daily doses, 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 29% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.92 (95% CI 0.54-1.57), and there was no association with dose. These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.

Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Colorectal cancer screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Objective: To examine whether guaranteed money or probabilistic lottery financial incentives conditional on completion of colorectal cancer screening increase screening uptake, particularly among groups with lower screening rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 3-arm randomized clinical trial was conducted from March 13, 2017, through April 12, 2018, at 21 medical centers in an integrated health care system in western Washington. A total of 838 age-eligible patients overdue for colorectal cancer screening who completed a questionnaire that confirmed eligibility and included sociodemographic and psychosocial questions were enrolled. Interventions: Interventions were (1) mail only (n = 284; up to 3 mailings that included information on the importance of colorectal cancer screening and screening test choices, a fecal immunochemical test [FIT], and a reminder letter if necessary), (2) mail and monetary (n = 270; mailings plus guaranteed $10 on screening completion), or (3) mail and lottery (n = 284; mailings plus a 1 in 10 chance of receiving $50 on screening completion). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of any colorectal cancer screening within 6 months of randomization. Secondary outcomes were FIT or colonoscopy completion within 6 months of randomization. Intervention effects were compared across sociodemographic subgroups and self-reported psychosocial measures. Results: A total of 838 participants (mean [SD] age, 59.7 [7.2] years; 546 [65.2%] female; 433 [52.2%] white race and 101 [12.1%] Hispanic ethnicity) were included in the study. Completion of any colorectal screening was not significantly higher for the mail and monetary group (207 of 270 [76.7%]) or the mail and lottery group (212 of 284 [74.6%]) than for the mail only group (203 of 284 [71.5%]) (P = .11). For FIT completion, interventions had a statistically significant effect (P = .04), with a net increase of 7.7% (95% CI, 0.3%-15.1%) in the mail and monetary group and 7.1% (95% CI, -0.2% to 14.3%) in the mail and lottery group compared with the mail only group. For patients with Medicaid insurance, the net increase compared with mail only in FIT completion for the mail and monetary or the mail and lottery group was 37.7% (95% CI, 11.0%-64.3%) (34.2% for the mail and monetary group and 40.4% for the mail and lottery group) compared with a net increase of only 5.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 12.2%) among those not Medicaid insured (test for interaction P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: Financial incentives increased FIT uptake but not overall colorectal cancer screening. Financial incentives may decrease screening disparities among some sociodemographically disadvantaged groups. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00697047.

Using a continuum of hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies to put research-tested colorectal screening interventions into practice.

BACKGROUND: Few previous studies have applied the hybrid effectiveness-implementation design framework to illustrate the way in which an intervention was progressively implemented and evaluated across multiple studies in diverse settings. METHODS: We describe the design components and methodologies of three studies that sought to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using mailed outreach, and apply domains put forth by Curran et al.: research aims, research questions, comparison conditions, sample, evaluation methods, measures, and potential challenges. The Hybrid 1 study (emphasis on effectiveness) was a patient-level randomized trial of a mailed fecal test and stepped phone-outreach intervention program delivered in an integrated healthcare system (21 clinics, 4673 patients). The primary outcome was effectiveness (CRC screening uptake). Implementation outcomes included cost-effectiveness and acceptability. The Hybrid 2 study (shared emphasis on effectiveness and implementation) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach implemented at safety net clinics (26 clinics, 41,000 patients). The intervention used electronic health record tools (adapted from Hybrid 1) and clinic personnel to deliver the intervention. Outcomes included effectiveness (FIT completion) and implementation (FIT kits delivered, clinic barriers and facilitators, cost-effectiveness). Hybrid 3 study (emphasis on implementation) is a demonstration project being conducted by two Medicaid/Medicare insurance plans (2 states, 12,000 patients) comparing two strategies for implementing mailed FIT programs that addressed Hybrid 2 implementation barriers. Outcomes include implementation (activities delivered, barriers) and effectiveness (FIT completion). RESULTS: The effectiveness-implementation typology successfully identified a number of distinguishing features between the three studies. Two additional features, program design and program delivery, varied across our studies, and we propose adding them to the current typology. Program design and program delivery reflect the process by which and by whom a program is designed and delivered (e.g., research staff vs. clinic/health plan staff). CONCLUSIONS: We describe three studies that demonstrate the hybrid effectiveness to implementation continuum and make recommendations for expanding the hybrid typology to include new descriptive features. Additional comparisons of Hybrid 1, 2, and 3 studies may help confirm whether our hybrid typology refinements are generalizable markers of the pipeline from research to practice.

A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 years: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening over many years is required to optimize reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. However, no prior trials have compared strategies for obtaining long-term adherence. METHODS: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up was implemented in an integrated health care organization in Washington State. Between 2008 and 2009, 4675 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomized to receive the usual care (UC), which included clinic-based strategies to increase CRC screening (arm 1), or, in years 1 and 2, mailings with a call-in number for colonoscopy and mailed fecal tests (arm 2), mailings plus brief telephone assistance (arm 3), or mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation (arm 4). Active-intervention subjects (those in arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) who were still eligible for CRC screening were randomized to mailings being stopped or continued in years 3 and 5. The time in compliance with CRC screening over 5 years was compared for persons assigned to any intervention and persons assigned to UC. Screening tests contributed time on the basis of national guidelines for screening intervals (fecal tests annually, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years). RESULTS: All participants contributed data, but they were censored at disenrollment, death, the age of 76 years, or a diagnosis of CRC. Compared with UC participants, intervention participants had 31% more adjusted covered time over 5 years (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.37; covered time, 47.5% vs 62.1%). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time. CONCLUSIONS: In a health care organization with clinic-based activities to increase CRC screening, a centralized program led to increased CRC screening adherence over 5 years. Longer term data on screening adherence and its impact on CRC outcomes are needed. Cancer 2017;123:4472-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Increase Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening: Collaboration between a Primary Care Clinic and Research Team.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that mailed fecal testing programs are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening participation. However, few healthcare organization in the US have Implemented such programs. METHODS: Stakeholders from one clinic in an integrated healthcare system in Washington State initiated collaboration with researchers with expertise in CRC screening, aiming to increase screening rates at their clinic. Age-eligible individuals who were overdue for CRC screening and had previously completed a fecal test were randomized to receive mailed fecal immunochemical test kits (FIT) at the start of the project (Early) or 6 months later (Late). Outcomes included comparing FIT completion at 6 months by randomization group, and overall CRC screening rates at 12 months. We also assessed implementation facilitators and challenges. RESULTS: Overall 2,421 FIT tests were mailed at a cost of $10,739. At 6 months, FIT completion was significantly higher among the Early compared to the Late group (62% vs.47%, p <0.001). By 12 months, after both groups had received mailings, 71% in each group had completed a FIT. The clinic's overall CRC screening rate was 75.1% at baseline and 78.0% 12 months later. Key constructs associated with successful program implementation included strong stakeholder involvement, use of evidence-based strategies, simplicity, and low cost. Challenges included lack of a plan for maintaining the program. DISCUSSION: Collaboration between clinic stakeholders and researchers led to a successful project that rapidly increased CRC screening rates. However, institutional normalization of the program would be required to maintain it.

Relationship between cardiovascular risk and lipid testing in one health care system: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommends routine lipid screening beginning age 35 for men [1]. For women age 20 and older, as well as men age 20-34, screening is recommended if cardiovascular risk factors are present. Prior research has focused on underutilization but not overuse of lipid testing. The objective is to document over- and under-use of lipid testing in an insured population of persons at low, moderate and high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for persons not already on statins. METHODS: The study is a retrospective cohort study that included all adults without prior CVD who were continuously enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system from 2005 to 2010. Measures included lipid test frequency extracted from administrative data and Framingham cardiovascular risk equations applied using electronic medical record data. Five year lipid testing patterns were examined by age, sex and CVD risk. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the relative risk for over testing associated with patient characteristics. RESULTS: Among males and females for whom testing is not recommended, 35.8 % and 61.5 % received at least one lipid test in the prior 5 years and 8.4 % and 24.4 % had two or more. Over-testing was associated with age, race, comorbidity, primary care use and neighborhood income. Among individuals at moderate and high-risk (not already treated with statins) and for whom screening is recommended, between 21.4 % and 25.1 % of individuals received no screening in the prior 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Based on USPSTF lipid screening recommendations, this study documents substantial over-testing among individuals with low CVD risk and under-testing among individuals with moderate to high-risk not already on statins. Opportunity exists to better focus lipid screening efforts appropriate to CVD risk.

A Successful Multifaceted Trial to Improve Hypertension Control in Primary Care: Why Did it Work?

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand which components of successful multifaceted interventions are responsible for study outcomes, since some components may be more important contributors to the intervention effect than others. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a mediation analysis to determine which of seven factors had the greatest effect on change in systolic blood pressure (BP) after 6 months in a trial to improve hypertension control. DESIGN: The study was a preplanned secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial. Eight clinics in an integrated health system were randomized to provide usual care to their patients (n = 222), and eight were randomized to provide a telemonitoring intervention (n = 228). PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred three of 450 trial participants completing the 6-month follow-up visit were included. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention group participants received home BP telemonitors and transmitted measurements to pharmacists, who adjusted medications and provided advice to improve adherence to medications and lifestyle modification via telephone visits. MAIN MEASURES: Path analytic models estimated indirect effects of the seven potential mediators of intervention effect (defined as the difference between the intervention and usual care groups in change in systolic BP from baseline to 6 months). The potential mediators were change in home BP monitor use, number of BP medication classes, adherence to BP medications, physical activity, salt intake, alcohol use, and weight. KEY RESULTS: The difference in change in systolic BP was 11.3 mmHg. The multivariable mediation model explained 47 % (5.3 mmHg) of the intervention effect. Nearly all of this was mediated by two factors: an increase in medication treatment intensity (24 %) and increased home BP monitor use (19 %). The other five factors were not significant mediators, although medication adherence and salt intake improved more in the intervention group than in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the explained intervention effect was attributable to the combination of self-monitoring and medication intensification. High adherence at baseline and the relatively low intensity of resources directed toward lifestyle change may explain why these factors did not contribute to the improvement in BP.

Psychological distress after a positive fecal occult blood test result among members of an integrated healthcare delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) reduces morbidity and mortality; however, the positive benefits might be partially offset by long-term distress following positive screening results. We examined relationships among colorectal cancer-specific worry and situational anxiety after positive fecal occult blood tests [FOBT (+)] compared with receipt of negative results. METHODS: Of note, 2,260 eligible members of Group Health, an integrated healthcare delivery system, completed baseline surveys and received FOBT screening kits, with 1,467 members returning the kits. We matched FOBT (+) patients (n = 55) 1:2 on age and sex with FOBT (-) respondents (n = 110). Both groups completed follow-up surveys at 7 to 14 days and 4 months after screening. We assessed situational anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI), colorectal cancer worry frequency, and mood disturbance. RESULTS: Mean age was 59 years, and majority were women (62%) and White (89%). After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline worry, at 7 to 14 days after screening, the FOBT (+) group was 3.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.09-13.43] times more likely to report colorectal cancer-related mood disturbances and significantly higher mean STAI scores than the FOBT (-) group (mean = 38.8 vs. 30.9; P = 0.007). At 4-month posttest, mood disturbances and situational anxiety seemed to drop to baseline levels for FOBT (+). No colon cancer worry frequency was observed. CONCLUSIONS: FOBT (+) results are associated with short-term situational anxiety and colorectal cancer-specific mood disturbances. IMPACT: Distress from FOBT (+) results declined to near-baseline levels by 4 months. Additional studies are needed to clarify the relationship between long-term distress and follow-up colonoscopy.

Uptake and positive predictive value of fecal occult blood tests: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare the uptake of three mailed high-sensitivity fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). METHODS: We conducted a parallel 3-arm randomized controlled trial in an integrated healthcare delivery system in Washington State. From January 2010 through February 2011, automated data were used to identify potentially eligible patients aged 50-74 due for colorectal cancer screening. Participants were mailed one of three FOBT kits (1-sample OC-Auto® fecal immunochemical test [FIT], 2-sample InSure® FIT, or 3-sample guaiac Hemoccult SENSA®), instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope. We performed a modified intent-to-treat analysis with return of any FOBT within 6 months of randomization as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 9922 people invited, 2873 returned surveys, 2263 were randomized, and 2234 were analyzed. FOBTs were returned by 1431 participants. At 6 months post-randomization, the proportions screened by any FOBT were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.72) for the OC-Auto arm, 0.64 (95% CI: 0.61-0.68) for the InSure arm, and 0.61 (95% CI: 0.58-0.65) for the Hemoccult SENSA arm (P<0.001 for any difference). Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between the OC-Auto group and each of the other groups after correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Uptake of mailed FOBT kits varies by kit type.

Physician-patient colorectal cancer screening discussions by physicians' screening rates.

BACKGROUND: Most physicians report routinely recommending colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but many eligible patients are not screened. To better understand this finding, we explored the relationship between the content of hypothetical patient-physician CRC screening discussions and CRC screening rates in physicians' practices. METHODS: Semistructured interviews, including role-playing, with 24 primary care physicians explored their CRC screening approach with average-risk patients. Qualitative analysis examined physician-reported components of the CRC screening discussion, then compared findings between physicians with high (≥60%, n = 16) and low (≤45%, n = 8) CRC screening rates (based on HEDIS criteria). We conducted no statistical tests because of the small sample size and its exploratory aims. RESULTS: High screeners used dramatic language (eg, patient stories) and mentioned risk of death, disability, or surgery from CRC in screening discussion role-plays more often than low screeners. High screeners frequently offered fecal occult blood testing, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy as equally acceptable screening options. High screeners more commonly described solutions for overcoming CRC screening barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging providers to use risk-specific messaging about the consequences of CRC, offering screening option choices, and promoting a problem-solving approach to surmount barriers are potential strategies for increasing CRC screening rates.

Nonparticipation in a population-based trial to increase colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Many trials have tested different strategies to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Few describe whether participants are representative of the population from which they are recruited. PURPOSE: To determine risk factors related to nonparticipation among patients enrolled in an integrated health plan and not up to date for CRC testing, in a trial to increase screening rates. METHODS: Between July 2008 and October 2009, a total of 15,000 adults aged 50-74 years from 21 clinics in Washington State who were due for CRC screening were contacted. Nonparticipants were defined as English-speaking patients who did not engage in the call or refused participation while still potentially eligible. Log-binomial regression models were used to estimate the relative risk of nonparticipation. Analyses were completed between October 2010 and June 2011. RESULTS: Patients who were nonwhite, had less education, used tobacco, had less continuity of care, and had lower rates of preventive care and cancer screening were more likely to be nonparticipants. Patients reporting never having received any type of CRC testing or screening were also more likely not to participate (62% of nonparticipants vs 46% of participants; adjusted RR=1.58, 95% CI=1.47, 1.70). Reasons for refusal included costs, risks of procedures, and not wanting their medical records reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients eligible for but not participating in the trial were more likely to be from minority socioeconomic and racial groups and had behaviors that can negatively affect cancer outcomes. Additional efforts are needed to recruit patients who need CRC screening the most. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT 00697047.