Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Treatment cost and access to care: experiences of young women diagnosed with breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women younger than 40 years. We aim to evaluate cost as a barrier to care among female breast cancer patients diagnosed between 18 to 39 years. METHODS: In early 2017, we distributed a survey to women diagnosed with breast cancer between the ages of 18 and 39 years, as identified by the central cancer registries of California, Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. We used multivariable statistics to explore cost-related barriers to receiving breast cancer care for the 830 women that completed the survey. RESULTS: About half of the women (47.4%) reported spending more on breast cancer care than expected, and almost two-thirds (65.3%) had not discussed costs with their care team. A third of the patients (31.8%) indicated forgoing care due to cost. Factors associated with not receiving anticipated care due to cost included age less than35 years at diagnosis, self-insurance, comorbid conditions, and late-stage diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Previous studies using breast cancer registry data have not included detailed insurance information and care received by young women. Young women with breast cancer frequently forgo breast cancer care due to cost. Our results highlight the potential for policies that facilitate optimal care for young breast cancer patients which could include the provision of comprehensive insurance coverage.

Role of an Implementation Economics Analysis in Providing the Evidence Base for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Since 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has funded organizations across the United States to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) to detect early CRC or precancerous polyps that can be treated to avoid disease progression and death. The objective of this study was to describe how findings from economic evaluation approaches of a subset of these awardees and their implementation sites (n = 9) can drive decision making and improve program implementation and diffusion. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We described the framework for the implementation economics evaluation used since 2016 for the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Learning Collaborative. EVALUATION METHODS: We compared CRC interventions implemented across health systems, changes in screening uptake, and the incremental cost per person of implementing an intervention. We also analyzed data on how implementation costs changed over time for a CRC program that conducted interventions in a series of rounds. RESULTS: Implementation of the interventions, which included provider and patient reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and incentives, resulted in increases in screening uptake ranging from 4.9 to 26.7 percentage points. Across the health systems, the incremental cost per person screened ranged from $18.76 to $144.55. One awardee's costs decreased because of a reduction in intervention development and start-up costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Health systems, CRCCP awardees, and CDC can use these findings for quality improvement activities, incorporation of information into trainings and support activities, and future program design.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Cost and Effectiveness of Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers in West Virginia.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.

The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky.

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and cost of patient incentives, together with patient navigation and patient reminders, to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates and colorectal cancer screening uptake in one federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Appalachia. This FQHC is a designated homeless clinic, as 79.7% of its patient population are homeless. We collected process, outcome, and cost data from the FQHC for two time periods: usual care (September 2016-August 2017) and implementation (September 2017-September 2018). We reported the FIT kit return rate, the increase in return rate, and the additional number of individual screens. We also calculated the incremental cost per additional screen. The patient incentive program, with patient navigation and patient reminders, increased the number of FIT kits returned from the usual care period to the implementation period. The return rate increased by 25.9 percentage points (from 21.7% to 47.6%) with an additional 91 people screened at an incremental cost of $134.61 per screen. A patient incentive program, together with the assistance of patient navigators and supplemented with patient reminders, can help improve CRC screening uptake among vulnerable and homeless populations.

Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago.

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.

As an awardee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, the California Department of Public Health partnered with Neighborhood Healthcare to implement evidence-based interventions and provider incentives (incentives offered to support staff, e.g., medical assistants, phlebotomists, front office staff, lab technicians) to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the provider incentive intervention implemented by Neighborhood Healthcare to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. We collected and analyzed process and cost data to assess fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates to the health centers and the number of completed FIT kits. We estimated the costs of the preexisting interventions and the new interventions. Analyses were conducted for two time periods: preimplementation and implementation. Most Neighborhood Healthcare health centers experienced an increase in the percentage of FIT kit returns (average of 3.6 percentage points) and individuals screened (an average increase of 111 FIT kits per month) from the baseline period through the implementation period. The cost of the incentive intervention for each additional screen was $66.79. In conclusion, the results indicate that incentive programs can have an overall positive impact on both the percentage of FIT kits returned and the number of individuals screened.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory.

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) mailing programs are effective for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objectives of the current study were to assess the magnitude of uptake that could be achieved with a mailed FIT program in a federally qualified health center and whether such a program can be implemented at a reasonable cost to support sustainability. METHODS: The Washington State Department of Health's partner HealthPoint implemented a direct-mail FIT program at 9 medical clinics, along with a follow-up reminder letter and automated telephone calls to those not up-to-date with recommended screening. Supplemental outreach events at selected medical clinics and a 50th birthday card screening reminder program also were implemented. The authors collected and analyzed process, effectiveness, and cost measures and conducted a systematic assessment of the short-term cost effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Overall, 5178 FIT kits were mailed with 4009 follow-up reminder letters, and 8454 automated reminder telephone calls were made over 12 months. In total, 1607 FIT kits were returned within 3 months of the end of the implementation period: an overall return rate of 31% for the mailed FIT program. The average total intervention cost per FIT kit returned was $39.81, and the intervention implementation cost per kit returned was $18.76. CONCLUSIONS: The mailed FIT intervention improved CRC screening uptake among HealthPoint's patient population. This intervention was implemented for less than $40 per individual successfully screened. The findings and lessons learned can assist other clinics that serve disadvantaged populations to increase their CRC screening adherence.

Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized. RESULTS: In total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region. CONCLUSIONS: Screening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Colorectal cancer screening interventions in 2 health care systems serving disadvantaged populations: Screening uptake and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of the current study were to assess changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and the cost-effectiveness of implementing multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs). EBIs were implemented at 2 federally qualified health centers that participated in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Clinic Quality Improvement for Population Health initiative. METHODS: Interventions included patient and provider reminder systems (health system 1), provider assessment and feedback (health systems 1 and 2), and numerous support activities (health systems 1 and 2). The authors evaluated health system 1 from July 2013 to June 2015 and health system 2 from July 2014 to June 2017. Evaluation measures included annual CRC screening uptake, EBIs implemented, funds received and expended by each health system to implement EBIs, and intervention costs to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and health systems. RESULTS: CRC screening uptake increased by 18 percentage points in health system 1 and 10 percentage points in health system 2. The improvements in CRC screening uptake, not including the cost of the screening tests, were obtained at an added cost ranging from $24 to $29 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: In both health systems, the multicomponent interventions implemented likely resulted in improvements in CRC screening. The results suggest that significant increases in CRC screening uptake can be achieved in federally qualified health centers when appropriate technical support and health system commitment are present. The cost estimates of the multicomponent interventions suggest that these interventions and support activities can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

Patterns and Trends in Cancer Screening in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: We examined the prevalence of cancer screening reported in 2015 among US adults, adjusted for important sociodemographic and access-to-care variables. By using data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) for 2000 through 2015, we examined trends in prevalence of cancer screening that adhered to US Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations in order to monitor screening progress among traditionally underserved population subgroups. METHODS: We analyzed NHIS data from surveys from 2000 through 2015 to estimate prevalence and trends in use of recommended screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. We used logistic regression and report predictive margins for population subgroups adjusted for various socioeconomic and demographic variables. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening was the only test that increased during the study period. We found disparities in prevalence of test use among subgroups for all tests examined. Factors that reduced the use of screening tests included no contact with a doctor in the past year, no usual source of health care, and no insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Understanding use of cancer screening tests among different population subgroups is vital for planning public health interventions with potential to increase screening uptake and reduce disparities in cancer morbidity and mortality. Overarching goals of Healthy People 2020 are to "achieve health equity, eliminate disparities, and improve the health of all groups." Adjusted findings for 2015, compared with previous years, show persistent screening disparities, particularly among the uninsured, and progress for colorectal cancer screening only.

Mammography rates after the 2009 revision to the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40-49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age. METHODS: We identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50-59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40-49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35-59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation. RESULTS: The proportion of women screened among the 40-49 and 50-59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40-49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40-49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Four Simulated Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions, North Carolina.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured and the under-insured and among rural and African American populations. Little guidance is available for state-level decision makers to use to prioritize investment in evidence-based interventions to improve their population's health. The objective of this study was to demonstrate use of a simulation model that incorporates synthetic census data and claims-based statistical models to project screening behavior in North Carolina. METHODS: We used individual-based modeling to simulate and compare intervention costs and results under 4 evidence-based and stakeholder-informed intervention scenarios for a 10-year intervention window, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2023. We compared the proportion of people living in North Carolina who were aged 50 to 75 years at some point during the window (that is, age-eligible for screening) who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations across intervention scenarios, both overall and among groups with documented disparities in receipt of screening. RESULTS: We estimated that the costs of the 4 intervention scenarios considered would range from $1.6 million to $3.75 million. Our model showed that mailed reminders for Medicaid enrollees, mass media campaigns targeting African Americans, and colonoscopy vouchers for the uninsured reduced disparities in receipt of screening by 2023, but produced only small increases in overall screening rates (0.2-0.5 percentage-point increases in the percentage of age-eligible adults who were up to date with CRC screening recommendations). Increased screenings ranged from 41,709 additional life-years up to date with screening for the voucher intervention to 145,821 for the mass media intervention. Reminders mailed to Medicaid enrollees and the mass media campaign for African Americans were the most cost-effective interventions, with costs per additional life-year up to date with screening of $25 or less. The intervention expanding the number of endoscopy facilities cost more than the other 3 interventions and was less effective in increasing CRC screening. CONCLUSION: Cost-effective CRC screening interventions targeting observed disparities are available, but substantial investment (more than $3.75 million) and additional approaches beyond those considered here are required to realize greater increases population-wide.

Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.

INTRODUCTION: Stated-preference methods provide a systematic approach to quantitatively assess the relative preferences for features of cancer screening tests. We reviewed stated-preference studies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening to identify the types of attributes included, the use of questions to assess uptake, and whether gaps exist in these areas. The goal of our review is to inform research on the design and promotion of public health programs to increase cancer screening. METHODS: Using the PubMed and EconLit databases, we identified studies published in English from January 1990 through July 2013 that measured preferences for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening test attributes using conjoint analysis or a discrete-choice experiment. We extracted data on study characteristics and results. We categorized studies by whether attributes evaluated included screening test, health care delivery characteristics, or both. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the search criteria. Colorectal cancer was the most commonly studied cancer of the 3. Fifteen studies examined only screening test attributes (efficacy, process, test characteristics, and cost). Two studies included only health care delivery attributes (information provided, staff characteristics, waiting time, and distance to facility). Five studies examined both screening test and health care delivery attributes. Overall, cancer screening test attributes had a significant effect on a patient's selection of a cancer screening test, and health care delivery attributes had mixed effects on choice. CONCLUSION: A growing number of studies examine preferences for cancer screening tests. These studies consistently find that screening test attributes, such as efficacy, process, and cost, are significant determinants of choice. Fewer studies have examined the effect of health care delivery attributes on choice, and the results from these studies are mixed. There is a need for additional studies on the barriers to cancer screening uptake, including health care delivery attributes, and the effect of education materials on preferences.

Cost of Operating Central Cancer Registries and Factors That Affect Cost: Findings From an Economic Evaluation of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) evaluated the economics of the National Program of Cancer Registries to provide the CDC, the registries, and policy makers with the economics evidence-base to make optimal decisions about resource allocation. Cancer registry budgets are under increasing threat, and, therefore, systematic assessment of the cost will identify approaches to improve the efficiencies of this vital data collection operation and also justify the funding required to sustain registry operations. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost of cancer registry operations and to assess the factors affecting the cost per case reported by National Program of Cancer Registries-funded central cancer registries. METHODS: We developed a Web-based cost assessment tool to collect 3 years of data (2009-2011) from each National Program of Cancer Registries-funded registry for all actual expenditures for registry activities (including those funded by other sources) and factors affecting registry operations. We used a random-effects regression model to estimate the impact of various factors on cost per cancer case reported. RESULTS: The cost of reporting a cancer case varied across the registries. Central cancer registries that receive high-quality data from reporting sources (as measured by the percentage of records passing automatic edits) and electronic data submissions, and those that collect and report on a large volume of cases had significantly lower cost per case. The volume of cases reported had a large effect, with low-volume registries experiencing much higher cost per case than medium- or high-volume registries. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that registries operate with substantial fixed or semivariable costs. Therefore, sharing fixed costs among low-volume contiguous state registries, whenever possible, and centralization of certain processes can result in economies of scale. Approaches to improve quality of data submitted and increasing electronic reporting can also reduce cost.