Patient-centered home cancer screening attitudes during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

COVID-19 has caused disruptions in health care, in particular cancer screenings. The primary aim of our work was to evaluate the degree to which populations were accepting of home-based screenings for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (primary HPV testing). Three groups of adults having distinct health burdens which may affect acceptance of home-based cancer screening were identified through outpatient electronic medical records as follows as either having survived a COVID hospitalization, having been positive for non-COVID respiratory illness or having type 2 diabetes. 132 respondents (58% female) completed an online survey with hypothetical cases about their acceptance of home-based CRC or cervical cancer screening. Among females, urine and vaginal screening for primary HPV testing was acceptable to 64% and 59%, respectively. Among both males and females, CRC home screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or Cologuard was acceptable to 60% of the respondents. When adjusting for education, women with a positive attitude toward home-based urine /vaginal screening were 49 times and 23 times more likely to have a positive attitude toward CRC screening (aOR=48.7 (95% CI: 7.1, 337) and aOR=23.2 (95% CI: 3.8, 142), respectively). This report indicates that home-based cancer screens for CRC and primary HPV testing are acceptable to men and women and may allow for greater compliance with screening in the future.

A consensus document on definition and diagnostic criteria for orthorexia nervosa.

PURPOSE: Since the term orthorexia nervosa (ON) was coined from the Greek (ὀρθός, right and ὄρεξις, appetite) in 1997 to describe an obsession with "correct" eating, it has been used worldwide without a consistent definition. Although multiple authors have proposed diagnostic criteria, and many theoretical papers have been published, no consensus definition of ON exists, empirical primary evidence is limited, and ON is not a standardized diagnosis. These gaps prevent research to identify risk and protective factors, pathophysiology, functional consequences, and evidence-based therapeutic treatments. The aims of the current study are to categorize the common observations and presentations of ON pathology among experts in the eating disorder field, propose tentative diagnostic criteria, and consider which DSM chapter and category would be most appropriate for ON should it be included. METHODS: 47 eating disorder researchers and multidisciplinary treatment specialists from 14 different countries across four continents completed a three-phase modified Delphi process, with 75% agreement determined as the threshold for a statement to be included in the final consensus document. In phase I, participants were asked via online survey to agree or disagree with 67 statements about ON in four categories: A-Definition, Clinical Aspects, Duration; B-Consequences; C-Onset; D-Exclusion Criteria, and comment on their rationale. Responses were used to modify the statements which were then provided to the same participants for phase II, a second round of feedback, again in online survey form. Responses to phase II were used to modify and improve the statements for phase III, in which statements that met the predetermined 75% of agreement threshold were provided for review and commentary by all participants. RESULTS: 27 statements met or exceeded the consensus threshold and were compiled into proposed diagnostic criteria for ON. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time a standardized definition of ON has been developed from a worldwide, multidisciplinary cohort of experts. It represents a summary of observations, clinical expertise, and research findings from a wide base of knowledge. It may be used as a base for diagnosis, treatment protocols, and further research to answer the open questions that remain, particularly the functional consequences of ON and how it might be prevented or identified and intervened upon in its early stages. Although the participants encompass many countries and disciplines, further research will be needed to determine if these diagnostic criteria are applicable to the experience of ON in geographic areas not represented in the current expert panel. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V: opinions of expert committees.

The future of cancer screening after COVID-19 may be at home.

LAY SUMMARY: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, cancer screening decreased precipitously; home screening for colorectal cancer diminished less than that for colonoscopy and breast and cervical cancer screening. The authors have highlighted approaches for home cancer screening in addition to telemedicine.

Bladder Cancer, Version 3.2020, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Recent guidelines on cancer screening have provided not only more screening options but also conflicting recommendations. Thus, patients, with their clinicians' support, must decide whether to get screened, which modality to use, and how often to undergo screening. Decision aids could potentially lead to better shared decision-making regarding screening between the patient and the clinician. A total of 73 decision aids concerning screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers were reviewed. The goal of this review was to assess the effectiveness of such decision aids, examine areas in need of more research, and determine how the decision aids can be currently applied in the real-world setting. Most studies used sound study designs. Significant variation existed in the setting, theoretical framework, and measured outcomes. Just over one-third of the decision aids included an explicit values clarification. Other than knowledge, little consistency was noted with regard to which patient attributes were measured as outcomes. Few studies actually measured shared decision-making. Little information was available regarding the feasibility and outcomes of integrating decision aids into practice. In this review, the implications for future research, as well as what clinicians can do now to incorporate decision aids into their practice, are discussed.

Three large scale surveys highlight the complexity of cervical cancer under-screening among women 45-65years of age in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Large scale United States (US) surveys guide efforts to maximize the health of its population. Cervical cancer screening is an effective preventive measure with a consistent question format among surveys. The aim of this study is to describe the predictors of cervical cancer screening in older women as reported by three national surveys. METHODS: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS 2016), the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 2017), and the Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS 2014) were analyzed with univariate and multivariate analyses. We defined the cohort as women, without hysterectomy, who were 45-65years old. The primary outcome was cytology within the last 3years. RESULTS: Overall, Pap screening rates were 71% (BRFSS), 79% (HINTS) and 66% (HCPS), among 41,657, 740 and 1571 women, respectively. BRFSS showed that women 60-64years old (aPR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.85, 0.91), and in rural locations (aPR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.92, 0.98) were significantly less likely to report cervical cancer screening than women 45-49-years old or in urban locations. Compared to less than high school, women with more education reported more screening (aPR=1.20, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.28), and those with insurance had higher screening rates than the uninsured (aPR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.62). HINTS and HCPS also showed these trends. CONCLUSIONS: All three surveys show that cervical cancer screening rates in women 45-65years are insufficient to reduce cervical cancer incidence. Insurance is the major positive predictor of screening, followed by younger age and more education. Race/ethnicity are variable predictors depending on the survey.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2018.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss important updates to the 2018 version of the guidelines, including implications of the 8th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual on treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer and incorporating newly approved immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies into treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease.

Bladder Cancer, Version 5.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on systemic therapy for muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, as substantial revisions were made in the 2017 updates, such as new recommendations for nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and avelumab. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer addresses additional aspects of the management of bladder cancer, including non-muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer and nonurothelial histologies, as well as staging, evaluation, and follow-up.

Providing prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan: Implications from the USA care model.

Despite an increasing number of prostate cancer survivors in Japan, the current delivery of prostate cancer survivorship care is insufficient and lacks a multidisciplinary approach. We carried out a study to characterize prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan, examine the Japanese workforce available to deliver survivorship care, introduce a conceptual framework for survivorship and identify opportunities to improve Japanese survivorship care. We systematically searched PubMed for prostate cancer survivorship care studies, including those from Japan. We also searched the internet for prostate cancer guidelines relevant to survivorship care. We found 392 articles, of which 71 were relevant, read in detail and reported here. In Japan, survivorship care is mostly provided by urologists. Primary care as a specialty does not exist in Japan, and there are no independent nurse practitioners or physician assistants to assist with survivorship care. Japanese quality of life studies characterize the long-term effects of prostate cancer treatment, but routine use of patient-reported outcomes is not common in Japan. In the USA, in light of a growing comprehensive awareness of challenges facing survivors and their providers, the American Cancer Society prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines serve as a tool for optimizing the management of long-term treatment effects and coordination of care. In order to deliver high-quality survivorship care in Japan, urologists need to establish collaborations with other disciplines within the delivery system. A multidisciplinary guideline for prostate cancer survivorship care in Japan appears warranted.

Perceived barriers and facilitators of using a Web-based interactive decision aid for colorectal cancer screening in community practice settings: findings from focus groups with primary care clinicians and medical office staff.

BACKGROUND: Information is lacking about the capacity of those working in community practice settings to utilize health information technology for colorectal cancer screening. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap we asked those working in community practice settings to share their perspectives about how the implementation of a Web-based patient-led decision aid might affect patient-clinician conversations about colorectal cancer screening and the day-to-day clinical workflow. METHODS: Five focus groups in five community practice settings were conducted with 8 physicians, 1 physician assistant, and 18 clinic staff. Focus groups were organized using a semistructured discussion guide designed to identify factors that mediate and impede the use of a Web-based decision aid intended to clarify patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening and to trigger shared decision making during the clinical encounter. RESULTS: All physicians, the physician assistant, and 8 of the 18 clinic staff were active participants in the focus groups. Clinician and staff participants from each setting reported a belief that the Web-based patient-led decision aid could be an informative and educational tool; in all but one setting participants reported a readiness to recommend the tool to patients. The exception related to clinicians from one clinic who described a preference for patients having fewer screening choices, noting that a colonoscopy was the preferred screening modality for patients in their clinic. Perceived barriers to utilizing the Web-based decision aid included patients' lack of Internet access or low computer literacy, and potential impediments to the clinics' daily workflow. Expanding patients' use of an online decision aid that is both easy to access and understand and that is utilized by patients outside of the office visit was described as a potentially efficient means for soliciting patients' screening preferences. Participants described that a system to link the online decision aid to a computerized reminder system could promote a better understanding of patients' screening preferences, though some expressed concern that such a system could be difficult to keep up and running. CONCLUSIONS: Community practice clinicians and staff perceived the Web-based decision aid technology as promising but raised questions as to how the technology and resultant information would be integrated into their daily practice workflow. Additional research investigating how to best implement online decision aids should be conducted prior to the widespread adoption of such technology so as to maximize the benefits of the technology while minimizing workflow disruptions.

Providing information about options in patient decision aids.

BACKGROUND: Legal, ethical, and psychological arguments indicate that patients need to receive information about their health situations before their care decisions are made. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are designed to help patients make decisions; therefore, they should provide information that results in patients understanding their health situation. We reviewed studies that assessed the impact of PtDAs on patient knowledge and on their feeling of being uninformed. METHODS: Our data sources were a published Cochrane Collaboration review that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before 2010 and a systematic review we conducted of RCTs published in 2010. We included trials that compared 1) PtDAs to usual care, and 2) PtDAs with simple information to PtDAs with more detailed information. Outcomes included patients' knowledge and their feeling of being uninformed. Data were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Meta-analyses of similar studies estimated the size of differences. RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs compared a PtDA to usual care and all showed higher knowledge scores for patients in the PtDA groups; a meta-analysis estimated the advantage at 14 (of 100) points. Sixteen (of 39) studies used the Feeling Uninformed subscale; a meta-analysis estimated a reduction of 7 (of 100) points in the PtDA group over usual care. Twenty-one studies compared simple- to more-detailed information in PtDAs. There was a small overall advantage for more detailed information on knowledge scores; a meta-analysis estimated the advantage at 5 (of 100) points. Only one study found higher mean knowledge scores for simpler information. Nine (of 21) studies reported using the Feeling Uninformed subscale and a meta-analysis suggested a reduction of 3 (of 100) points for the more-detailed PtDAs over those with simpler information. Only one study found that simpler information resulted in patients feeling more informed. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that PtDAs result in patients having higher knowledge scores and in reduced feelings of being uninformed over patients who receive usual care. It also appears that PtDAs with more detailed information generally result in slightly higher knowledge and lower "Feeling Uninformed" scores than those with simpler information, but the differences are small and can be reversed under some circumstances.

Enhancing Nonverbal Communication Through Virtual Human Technology: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Communication is a critical component of the patient-provider relationship; however, limited research exists on the role of nonverbal communication. Virtual human training is an informatics-based educational strategy that offers various benefits in communication skill training directed at providers. Recent informatics-based interventions aimed at improving communication have mainly focused on verbal communication, yet research is needed to better understand how virtual humans can improve verbal and nonverbal communication and further elucidate the patient-provider dyad. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to enhance a conceptual model that incorporates technology to examine verbal and nonverbal components of communication and develop a nonverbal assessment that will be included in the virtual simulation for further testing. METHODS: This study will consist of a multistage mixed methods design, including convergent and exploratory sequential components. A convergent mixed methods study will be conducted to examine the mediating effects of nonverbal communication. Quantitative (eg, MPathic game scores, Kinect nonverbal data, objective structured clinical examination communication score, and Roter Interaction Analysis System and Facial Action Coding System coding of video) and qualitative data (eg, video recordings of MPathic-virtual reality [VR] interventions and student reflections) will be collected simultaneously. Data will be merged to determine the most crucial components of nonverbal behavior in human-computer interaction. An exploratory sequential design will proceed, consisting of a grounded theory qualitative phase. Using theoretical, purposeful sampling, interviews will be conducted with oncology providers probing intentional nonverbal behaviors. The qualitative findings will aid the development of a nonverbal communication model that will be included in a virtual human. The subsequent quantitative strand will incorporate and validate a new automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment into the virtual human simulation, MPathic-VR, by assessing interrater reliability, code interactions, and dyadic data analysis by comparing Kinect responses (system recorded) to manually scored records for specific nonverbal behaviors. Data will be integrated using building integration to develop the automated nonverbal communication behavior assessment and conduct a quality check of these nonverbal features. RESULTS: Secondary data from the MPathic-VR randomized controlled trial data set (210 medical students and 840 video recordings of interactions) were analyzed in the first part of this study. Results showed differential experiences by performance in the intervention group. Following the analysis of the convergent design, participants consisting of medical providers (n=30) will be recruited for the qualitative phase of the subsequent exploratory sequential design. We plan to complete data collection by July 2023 to analyze and integrate these findings. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study contribute to the improvement of patient-provider communication, both verbal and nonverbal, including the dissemination of health information and health outcomes for patients. Further, this research aims to transfer to various topical areas, including medication safety, informed consent processes, patient instructions, and treatment adherence between patients and providers. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46601.

Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts.

Multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to improve the completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other safety net settings in marginalized communities. Little effort has been made, however, to evaluate their relative effectiveness across different clinical contexts and populations. To this end, we tested the relative effectiveness of three EBIs (mailed birthday cards, lay navigation, and provider-delivered education) among a convenience sample of 1252 patients (aged 50-75 years old, who were due for CRC screening and scheduled for a visit at one of three clinics within a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the United States. To be eligible for the study, patients had to identify as African American (AA) or Latino American (LA). We compared the effects of the three EBIs on CRC screening completion using logistic regression. Overall, 20% of the study population, an increase from a baseline of 13%, completed CRC screening. Clinical demographics appeared to influence the effectiveness of the EBIs. Mailed birthday reminders appeared to be the most effective within the multi-ethnic clinic (p = 0.03), provider-delivered education within the predominantly LA clinic (p = 0.02), and lay navigation within the predominantly AA clinic (p = 0.03). These findings highlight the importance of understanding clinical context when selecting which evidence-based interventions to deploy.

A Malpractice Claims Study of a Family Medicine Department: A 20-Year Review.

BACKGROUND: This study describes medical malpractice claims from a large academic family medicine department over 20 years. The intent of this investigation is to analyze trends within the department, seeking to better understand how to improve the quality of patient care. STUDY DESIGN: The Office of Patient Relations and Clinical Risk (PRCR) at University of Michigan Health maintains a centralized database of family medicine malpractice claims dating back to 1987. Records from 2000 to 2020 were requested from this database and received in a deidentified manner to protect patient confidentiality, and as such this study was exempt from IRB review. A total of 55 claims occurred during this time period. These claims were then analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative terms. RESULTS: Of the 55 claims, 87.3% involved adult patients; 76.5% of the claims occurred in the outpatient setting; 98.1% of the claims involved attending physicians and 26.9% involved resident physicians; 54.5% of the claims were closed without payment and 43.6% of the claims were settled. The average settled claim amount was $742,110.50 which dropped to $160,838.59 after excluding obstetric claims. In addition, 61.8% of the claims were related to diagnosis related allegations and 16.4% of the claims involved treatment related allegations. Primarily involving allegations of missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer, 29.1% of the claims were cancer related. While 79.2% of settled claims did not meet standard of care, 83.3% of the claims closed without payment did meet standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: Most claims involved adult patients, occurred in the outpatient setting, and involved diagnosis related allegations. Although representing a minority of the claims, obstetric claims made up most of the total settlement amount. Missed or delayed diagnoses of cancer were a common cause for claims, reinforcing the important role that primary care physicians have in supervising and administering preventative health care to patients. This study also emphasizes the value of peer review committees to help inform medical-legal consultants as evidenced by the high correlation between standard of care determination and final claims outcomes.

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study.

Background: Using screen counts, women 50-64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both. Methods: We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50-64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category. Results: Among women ages 50-64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1-59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0-28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9-5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7-9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60-64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)). Conclusions: Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50-64 years may increase both cancer screening rates. Funding: This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

Routine screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers save lives by detecting cancers at an early stage when they are more treatable and more likley to cure. Most cancer screening in the United States is focused on single cancer screening programs, often held at community health fairs, pop-up screening vans and other settings, without coordination with the individuals' primary care doctors. This is problematic because the primary care physician cannot counsel if the results are abnormal and advise when the next routine screen is appropriate. This leads to gaps in women not being informed that they are due for routine screening and gaps to act on any abnormal screening results. This is especially problematic for women aged 50 to 64, who are less likely to screen for either cancer alone compared to other age groups. Currently, 86% of women in the United States are up to date with cervical cancer screening, and 64% are up to date with colorectal cancer screening. However, it is not clear how many women in this age group receive both screens, compared to a single screen or neither screen. Harper et al. analyzed data from over 40,000 women aged 50 to 64, collected in a United States health survey in 2018. This study revealed that only 59% of the women reported being up to date with cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Compared to women who did not screen at all, women completing both screens were more educated, had higher incomes, and were more likely to have other chronic conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, depression and other cancers. These findings reveal that the number of women aged 50 to 64 in the United States, who are up to date with both cancer screenings, is still well below national targets. Harper et al. propose that shifting towards a women-centric focus, with primary care physicians or health care systems responsible for managing screening efforts, could decrease cancer incidence and mortality. In future, self-test kits for both cancers should help encourage more women to have both screens in a comfortable environment. This change in focus will also allow primary care physicians to notify women at appropriate intervals to attend routine screening and immediate follow-ups in the case of abnormal results.

Patient-Centered Home Cancer Screening Attitudes During COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery of cancer screenings. The primary aim of our work was to evaluate the degree to which populations were accepting of home-based screenings for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (ie, primary human papillomavirus [HPV] testing). Three groups of adults having distinct health burdens that may affect acceptance of home-based cancer screening were identified through outpatient electronic medical records: those having survived a COVID-19 hospitalization; those having been positive for a non-COVID-19 respiratory illness; or those having type 2 diabetes. A total of 132 respondents (58% female) completed an online survey with hypothetical cases about their acceptance of home-based CRC or cervical cancer screening. Among women respondents, urine and vaginal screening for primary HPV testing was acceptable to 64% and 59%, respectively. Among both men and women, at-home CRC screening with fecal immunochemical test or Cologuard® was acceptable to 60% of the respondents. When adjusting for education, women with a positive attitude toward home-based urine and vaginal screening were 49 times and 23 times more likely, respectively, to have a positive attitude toward CRC screening. These findings indicate that home-based cancer screens for CRC and primary HPV testing are acceptable to men and women and may allow for greater compliance with screening in the future.

Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Setting: A Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer screening has been shown to prevent or detect early colorectal cancer and reduce mortality; yet, adherence to screening recommendations remains low, particularly in rural settings. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n=7,812) aged 50-75 years and due for colorectal cancer screening in a largely rural health system were randomly assigned to either the intervention (n=3,906) or the control (n=3,906) group in September 2016, with analysis following through 2018. INTERVENTION: A mailed motivational messaging screening reminder letter with an option to call and request a free at-home fecal immunochemical screening test (intervention) or the standard invitation letter detailing that the individual was due for screening (control). Multifaceted motivational messaging emphasized colorectal cancer preventability and the ease and affordability of screening, and communicated a limited supply of test kits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colorectal cancer screening participation within 6 months after mailed invitation was ascertained from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening participation was significantly improved in the intervention (30.1%) vs the usual care control group (22.5%; p<0.001). Individuals randomized to the intervention group had 49% higher odds of being screened over follow-up than those randomized to the control group (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.34, 1.65). A total of 13.2 screening invitations were needed to accomplish 1 additional screening over the usual care. Of the 233 fecal immunochemical test kits mailed to participants, 154 (66.1%) were returned, and 18 (11.7%) tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: A mailed motivational messaging letter with a low-cost screening alternative increased colorectal cancer screening in this largely rural community with generally poor adherence to screening recommendations. Mailed colorectal cancer screening reminders using motivational messaging may be an effective method for increasing screening and reducing rural colorectal cancer disparities.

Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation.

PURPOSE: Screening for fecal occult blood reduces colorectal cancer mortality by identifying patients with positive results for complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE). CDE rates are suboptimal, however. We sought to determine common reasons for nonperformance of a CDE as recorded by the primary care physician. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive analysis of reasons reported by physicians for nonperformance of CDE in a nested sample of patients with positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) results from a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the impact of a physician intervention (CDE reminder-feedback and educational outreach) on recommendation and performance rates in primary care practices. Inspection of administrative data for 1,468 patients with positive results showed that 661 (45%) did not undergo CDE. We reviewed patient follow-up forms, which were completed by physicians for patients who did not have a CDE, to identify reasons for nonperformance. RESULTS: Nonperformance of CDE was due to physician decision for 217 patients (33%). In 123 patients (19%), reasons for nonperformance were compatible with the guidelines, and in 94 patients (14%), they were not. Reasons wholly or partially due to factors other than physician decision were noted in 212 patients (32%); physician action was considered to be appropriate in these patients. For the 232 patients (35%) without a clearly documented reason for CDE nonperformance, the appropriateness of the physicians' action could not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Decision making by primary care physicians had a major effect on nonperformance of CDE after a positive FOBT result. Colorectal cancer screening programs should include guidance for physicians about when a CDE should and should not be performed.

Factors influencing choices for colorectal cancer screening among previously unscreened African and Caucasian Americans: findings from a triangulation mixed methods investigation.

We investigated factors that influence choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test and assessed the most- and least-preferred options among fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and double contrast barium enema among adults with varied race, gender, and geographic region demographics. Mixed methods data collection consisted of 10 focus group interviews and a survey of the 93 focus group participants. Participants were >or=50 years of age and reported not having been screened for colorectal cancer in the last ten years. Analyses examined differences by race, gender, and geographic location. Participants had modest knowledge about CRC and there were fewer correct answers to knowledge questions by African Americans. Participants recognized value of early detection, and identified health symptoms and their doctor's recommendation as influential for obtaining CRC screening. They chose colonoscopy and FOBT as the most preferred tests, while barium enema was least preferred. The analysis revealed intra-group variations in preference, though there were no significant differences by race, gender, or location. Openness of discussing this sensitive topic, lack of knowledge about colorectal cancer and screening costs, and diversity of preferences expressed within study groups suggest the importance of patient-physician dialogue about colorectal cancer screening options. New approaches to promoting colorectal cancer screening need to explore methods to facilitate patients establishing and expressing preferences among the screening options.