The Effects of a Multicomponent Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention on Knowledge, Recommendation, and Screening among Underserved Populations.

This trial tested a multicomponent intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among underserved patients. Participants were randomized to: (1) physician + patient intervention, (2) physician-only intervention, or (3) usual care (UC). Study outcomes included patient knowledge, physician recommendation of CRC screening, and screening completion via colonoscopy or stool tests. Among 538 participants, those exposed to the physician + patient intervention had significantly increased knowledge over patients in physician-only (p=.0008) or UC arms (p=.0003). However, there were no statistically significant differences in completion of CRC screening, with 10%, 20%, and 16% of UC, physician-only, and physician + patient participants screened, respectively. In UC, all completed screenings were colonoscopy, whereas in the physician-only and physician + patient arms, 39% and 46% of completed tests were via stool test, respectively. The multicomponent intervention did not increase overall CRC screening, yet results underscore the need to provide patients options for completing CRC screening.

Comparing the Performance of the S-TOFHLA and NVS Among and Between English and Spanish Speakers.

Given the growing body of evidence demonstrating the significant implications of health literacy on a myriad of outcomes, researchers continue to incorporate health literacy metrics in studies. With this proliferation in measurement of health literacy in research, it has become increasingly important to understand how various health literacy tools perform in specific populations. Our objective was to compare the performance of two widely used tests, the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA) and the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) among and between a sample of English and Spanish-speaking patients. Adults (N = 402) ages 50-75 years participating in a trial to promote colorectal cancer screening completed in-person interviews which included both measures of health literacy. In the full sample, the tests were moderately correlated (r = 0.69, p < .0001); however, there was a stronger correlation among those completing the test in Spanish (r = 0.83) as compared with English (r = 0.58, p < .0001). English speakers more often were categorized as having adequate literacy by the S-TOFHLA as compared with the NVS, whereas Spanish speakers scored consistently low on both instruments. These findings indicate that the categorization of participants into levels of literacy is likely to vary, depending on whether the NVS or S-TOFHLA is used for assessment, a factor which researchers should be aware of when selecting literacy assessments.

The Effectiveness of a Physician-Only and Physician-Patient Intervention on Colorectal Cancer Screening Discussions Between Providers and African American and Latino Patients.

BACKGROUND: Physician recommendation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a critical facilitator of screening completion. Providing patients a choice of screening options may increase CRC screening completion, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the effectiveness of physician-only and physician-patient interventions on increasing rates of CRC screening discussions as compared to usual care. DESIGN: This study was quasi-experimental. Clinics were allocated to intervention or usual care; patients in intervention clinics were randomized to receipt of patient intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years, due for CRC screening, receiving care at either a federally qualified health care center or an academic health center participated in the study. INTERVENTION: Intervention physicians received continuous quality improvement and communication skills training. Intervention patients watched an educational video immediately before their appointment. MAIN MEASURES: Rates of patient-reported 1) CRC screening discussions, and 2) discussions of more than one screening test. KEY RESULTS: The physician-patient intervention (n = 167) resulted in higher rates of CRC screening discussions compared to both physician-only intervention (n = 183; 61.1 % vs.50.3 %, p = 0.008) and usual care (n = 153; 61.1 % vs. 34.0 % p = 0.03). More discussions of specific CRC screening tests and discussions of more than one test occurred in the intervention arms than in usual care (44.6 % vs. 22.9 %,p = 0.03) and (5.1 % vs. 2.0 %, p = 0.036), respectively, but discussion of more than one test was uncommon. Across all arms, 143 patients (28.4 %) reported discussion of colonoscopy only; 21 (4.2 %) reported discussion of both colonoscopy and stool tests. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care and a physician-only intervention, a physician-patient intervention increased rates of CRC screening discussions, yet discussions overwhelmingly focused solely on colonoscopy. In underserved patient populations where access to colonoscopy may be limited, interventions encouraging discussions of both stool tests and colonoscopy may be needed.

Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower among Latinos and people living in poverty. Fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is one recommended screening modality that may overcome cost and access barriers. However, the ability of FOBT to reduce CRC mortality depends on high rates of adherence to annual screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multifaceted intervention increases adherence to annual FOBT compared with usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patient-level randomized controlled trial conducted in a network of community health centers. Included were 450 patients who had previously completed a home FOBT from March 2011 through February 2012 and had a negative test result: 72% of participants were women; 87% were Latino; 83% stated that Spanish was their preferred language; and 77% were uninsured. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care at participating health centers included computerized reminders, standing orders for medical assistants to give patients home fecal immunochemical tests (FIT), and clinician feedback on CRC screening rates. The intervention group also received (1) a mailed reminder letter, a free FIT with low-literacy instructions, and a postage-paid return envelope; (2) an automated telephone and text message reminding them that they were due for screening and that a FIT was being mailed to them; (3) an automated telephone and text reminder 2 weeks later for those who did not return the FIT; and (4) personal telephone outreach by a CRC screening navigator after 3 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Completion of FOBT within 6 months of the date the patient was due for annual screening. RESULTS: Intervention patients were much more likely than those in usual care to complete FOBT (82.2% vs 37.3%; P < .001). Of the 185 intervention patients completing screening, 10.2% completed prior to their due date (intervention was not given), 39.6% within 2 weeks (after initial intervention), 24.0% within 2 to 13 weeks (after automated call/text reminder), and 8.4% between 13 and 26 weeks (after personal call). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This intervention greatly increased adherence to annual CRC screening; most screenings were achieved without personal calls. It is possible to improve annual CRC screening for vulnerable populations with relatively low-cost strategies that are facilitated by health information technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01453894.

Design of a randomized controlled trial to assess the comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to colorectal cancer screening among patients cared for in a community health center.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common and leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Although screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or endoscopy has been shown to decrease CRC mortality, screening rates remain suboptimal. Screening rates are particularly low for people with low incomes and members of underrepresented minority groups. FOBT should be done annually to detect CRC early and to reduce CRC mortality, but this often does not occur. This paper describes the design of a multifaceted intervention to increase long-term adherence to FOBT among poor, predominantly Latino patients, and the design of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of this intervention compared to usual care. METHODS: In this RCT, patients who are due for repeat FOBT are identified in the electronic health record (EHR) and randomized to receive either usual care or a multifaceted intervention. The usual care group includes multiple point-of-care interventions (e.g., standing orders, EHR reminders), performance measurement, and financial incentives to improve CRC screening rates. The intervention augments usual care through mailed CRC screening test kits, low literacy patient education materials, automated phone and text message reminders, in-person follow up calls from a CRC Screening Coordinator, and communication of results to patients along with a reminder card highlighting when the patient is next due for screening. The primary outcome is completion of FOBT within 6 months of becoming due. DISCUSSION: The main goal of the study is to determine the comparative effectiveness of the intervention compared to usual care. Additionally, we want to assess whether or not it is possible to achieve high rates of adherence to CRC screening with annual FOBT, which is necessary for reducing CRC mortality. The intervention relies on technology that is increasingly widespread and declining in cost, including EHR systems, automated phone and text messaging, and FOBTs for CRC screening. We took this approach to ensure generalizability and allow us to rapidly disseminate the intervention through networks of community health centers (CHCs) if the RCT shows the intervention to be superior to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01453894.

Surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy use among veterans with colon cancer: insights from a California study.

PURPOSE: US veterans have been shown to be a vulnerable population with high cancer rates, and cancer care quality in Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals is the focus of a congressionally mandated review. We examined rates of surgery and chemotherapy use among veterans with colon cancer at VA and non-VA facilities in California to gain insight into factors associated with quality of cancer care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of incident colon cancer patients from the California Cancer Registry, who were > or = 66 years old and eligible to use VA and Medicare between 1999 and 2001, were observed for 6 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 601 veterans with colon cancer, 72% were initially diagnosed and treated in non-VA facilities. Among veterans with stage I to III cancer, those diagnosed and initially treated in VA facilities experienced similar colectomy rates as those at non-VA facilities. Stage III patients diagnosed and initially treated in VA versus non-VA facilities had similar odds of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. In both settings, older patients had lower odds of receiving chemotherapy than their younger counterparts even when race and comorbidity were considered (age 76 to 85 years: odds ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.46; age > or = 86 years: OR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.73). CONCLUSION: In California, older veterans with colon cancer used both VA and non-VA facilities for cancer treatment, and odds of receiving cancer-directed surgery and chemotherapy were similar in both systems. Among stage III patients, older age lowered odds of receiving adjuvant chemotherapy in both systems. Further studies should continue to explore potential health system effects on quality of colon cancer care across the United States.

Process evaluation in an intervention designed to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening in a VA medical center.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the United States. Although CRC screening is recommended for individuals 50 years and older, screening completion rates are low. This can be attributed to provider and patient barriers. We developed an intervention to improve provider recommendation and patient screening among noncompliant male veterans in a 2-year randomized controlled trial and examined the relationship between participation and study outcomes among patients and providers. Overall, providers who attended intervention sessions recommended CRC screening during 64% of patient visits and providers who did not attend any intervention sessions recommended screening during 54% of visits (p < .01). Patients of providers who attended intervention sessions also were more likely to be screened (42% versus 29%, p < .05). The patient intervention did not have the desired impact. The subgroup of patients in the patient intervention was not more likely to complete CRC screening.

Costs and cost effectiveness of a health care provider-directed intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Veterans.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, particularly in the Veterans Affairs (VA) population. In a randomized controlled trial, a health care provider-directed intervention that offered quarterly feedback to physicians on their patients' colorectal cancer screening rates led to a 9% increase in colorectal cancer screening rates among veterans. The objective of this secondary analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening promotion intervention. METHODS: Providers in the intervention arm attended an educational workshop on colorectal cancer screening and received confidential feedback on individual and group-specific colorectal cancer screening rates. The primary end point was completion of colorectal cancer screening tests. Sensitivity analyses investigated cost-effectiveness estimates varying the data collection methods, costs of labor and technology, and the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS: Rates of colorectal cancer screening for the intervention versus control arms were 41.3% v 32.4%, respectively (P < .05). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 978 per additional veteran screened based on feedback reports generated from manual review of records. However, if feedback reports could be generated from information technology systems, sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness estimate would decrease to dollar 196 per additional veteran screened. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on quarterly feedback reports to physicians improved colorectal cancer screening rates at a VA medical center. This intervention would be cost effective if relevant data could be generated by existing information technology systems. Our findings may have broad applicability because a 2005 Medicare initiative will provide the VA electronic medical record system as a free benefit to all US physicians.

Development of a brief survey on colon cancer screening knowledge and attitudes among veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Poor knowledge of and negative attitudes toward available screening tests may account in part for colorectal cancer screening rates being the lowest among 17 quality measures reported for the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system, the largest integrated health system in the United States. The purpose of this study was to develop a brief assessment tool to evaluate knowledge and attitudes among veterans toward colorectal cancer screening options. METHODS: A 44-item questionnaire was developed to assess knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about colorectal cancer and screening and was then administered as part of an ongoing randomized controlled trial among 388 veterans receiving care in a general medicine clinic. Sixteen candidate items on colorectal cancer knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs were selected for further evaluation using principal components analysis. Two sets of items were then further analyzed. RESULTS: Because the Cronbach alpha for beliefs was low (alpha = 0.06), the beliefs subscale was deleted from further consideration. The final scale consisted of seven items: a four-item attitude subscale (alpha = 0.73) and a three-item knowledge subscale (alpha = 0.59). Twelve-month follow-up data were used to evaluate predictive validity; improved knowledge and attitudes were significantly associated with completion of flexible sigmoidoscopy (P = .004) and completion of either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The two-factor scale offers a parsimonious and reliable measure of colorectal cancer screening knowledge and attitudes among veterans. This colorectal Cancer Screening Survey (CSS) may especially be useful as an evaluative tool in developing and testing of interventions designed to improve screening rates within this population.

Colorectal cancer screening among African-American and white male veterans.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies from Medicare and privately insured individuals have consistently identified lower rates of colorectal cancer-screening tests among African-American versus white individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether, at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center, similar racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer screening could be identified. METHODS: Study participants were male veterans, aged > or =50, attending a general medicine clinic in a VA hospital, who had not had either a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) within the past year or a flexible sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy within the past 5 years. Based on review of electronic medical records, rates of physician recommendation for FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy, and patient completion of these tests were obtained and compared by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Sixty percent of 1599 veterans had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening. Physicians recommended colorectal screening tests equally among African-American and white patients (71.0% vs 68.2%, p=0.44). African-American patients were 1.3 times more likely than white patients to receive colorectal screening procedures (36.3% vs 28.9%, p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other settings, in a general medicine clinic at a VA hospital, rates of colorectal cancer-screening tests were not lower for African-American patients compared to white patients.

Health care provider-directed intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among veterans: results of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is the most underused cancer screening tool in the United States. The purpose of this study was to test whether a health care provider-directed intervention increased colorectal cancer screening rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted at two clinic firms at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The records of 5,711 patients were reviewed; 1,978 patients were eligible. Eligible patients were men aged 50 years and older who had no personal or family history of colorectal cancer or polyps, had not received colorectal cancer screening, and had at least one visit to the clinic during the study period. Health care providers in the intervention firm attended a workshop on colorectal cancer screening. Every 4 to 6 months, they attended quality improvement workshops where they received group screening rates, individualized confidential feedback, and training on improving communication with patients with limited literacy skills. Medical records were reviewed for colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion. Literacy level was assessed in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening was recommended for 76.0% of patients in the intervention firm and for 69.4% of controls (P = .02). Screening tests were completed by 41.3% of patients in the intervention group versus 32.4% of controls (P = .003). Among patients with health literacy skills less than ninth grade, screening was completed by 55.7% of patients in the intervention group versus 30% of controls (P < .01). CONCLUSION: A provider-directed intervention with feedback on individual and firm-specific screening rates significantly increased both recommendations and colorectal cancer screening completion rates among veterans.

Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether lower literacy is associated with poorer knowledge and more negative attitudes and beliefs toward colorectal cancer screening among veterans without recent colorectal cancer screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred seventy-seven male veterans, age 50 years and older, who had not undergone recent colorectal cancer screening, were surveyed about their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening. Patients' literacy was assessed with the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine, an individually administered screening test for reading. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the 377 men had an eighth grade literacy level or higher. Men with lower literacy were 3.5 times as likely not to have heard about colorectal cancer (8.8% v 2.5%; P =.006), 1.5 times as likely not to know about screening tests (58.4% v 40.9%; P =.0001), and were more likely to have negative attitudes about fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), but not about flexible sigmoidoscopy. Specifically, men with lower literacy skills were two times as likely to be worried that FOBT was messy (26.7% v 13.3%; P =.008), 1.5 times as likely to feel that FOBT was inconvenient (28.7% v 18%; P =.05), and four times as likely to state they would not use an FOBT kit even if their physician recommended it (17.9% v 4.0%; P =.02). CONCLUSION: Limited literacy may be an overlooked barrier in colorectal cancer screening among veterans.