A Cell-free DNA Blood-Based Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in adults in the United States. Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality. METHODS: We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions. RESULTS: The clinical validation cohort included 10,258 persons, 7861 of whom met eligibility criteria and were evaluable. A total of 83.1% of the participants with colorectal cancer detected by colonoscopy had a positive cfDNA test and 16.9% had a negative test, which indicates a sensitivity of the cfDNA test for detection of colorectal cancer of 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2 to 90.3). Sensitivity for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer was 87.5% (95% CI, 75.3 to 94.1), and sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 13.2% (95% CI, 11.3 to 15.3). A total of 89.6% of the participants without any advanced colorectal neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) identified on colonoscopy had a negative cfDNA blood-based test, whereas 10.4% had a positive cfDNA blood-based test, which indicates a specificity for any advanced neoplasia of 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8 to 90.3). Specificity for negative colonoscopy (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0 to 90.7). CONCLUSIONS: In an average-risk screening population, this cfDNA blood-based test had 83% sensitivity for colorectal cancer, 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia, and 13% sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions. (Funded by Guardant Health; ECLIPSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04136002.).

Implementing an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Lessons Learned From an Academic-Community Practice.

Introduction: The effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice. Methods: Data from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence. Results: The Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy. Conclusions: Real-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.

Performance of OC-Auto Micro 80 Fecal Immunochemical Test in an Integrated Academic-Community Health System.

GOALS: We aimed to determine the performance of the OC-Auto Micro 80 fecal immunochemical test (FIT) in an average-risk population receiving care in an integrated, academic-community health system. BACKGROUND: The FIT is the most used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test worldwide. However, many Food and Drug Administration-cleared FIT products have not been evaluated in clinical settings. STUDY: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients (50 to 75 y old) in the University of Washington Medicine health care system who were screened for CRC by OC-Auto Micro 80 FIT between March 2016 and September 2021. We used electronic health records to extract patient-level and clinic-level factors, FIT use, colonoscopy, and pathology findings. The primary outcomes were the FIT positivity rate and neoplasms detected at colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were FIT positivity by sex and safety-net versus non-safety-net clinical settings. RESULTS: We identified 39,984 FITs completed by 26,384 patients; 2411 (6.0%) had a positive FIT result (>100 ng/mL of hemoglobin in buffer), and 1246 (51.7%) completed a follow-up colonoscopy. The FIT positive rate was 7.0% in men and 5.2% in women (P <0.01). Among those who completed a colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result, the positive predictive value for CRC, advanced adenoma, and advanced neoplasia was 3.0%, 20.9%, and 23.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective analysis of a large heterogeneous population, the OC-Auto Micro 80 FIT for CRC screening demonstrated a positivity rate of 6.0% and a positive predictive value for CRC of 3.0%.

AGA clinical practice update on risk stratification for colorectal cancer screening and post-polypectomy surveillance: expert review

Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature.

Health System-Provided Rideshare Is Safe and Addresses Barriers to Colonoscopy Completion.

In 2019, nearly 14 million colonoscopies were performed in the United States.1 In these settings, the accepted practice is that a responsible person drives and chaperones patients home after receiving procedural sedation, including colonoscopy.2 Lack of access to transportation and/or a chaperone is a persistent barrier to care in safety-net health systems and federally qualified health centers as a result of lower incomes, underinsurance, and higher social needs.3 Given racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in many digestive diseases that require colonoscopy for diagnosis and management, innovative solutions are needed to overcome logistical barriers to colonoscopy completion, especially in these settings.

Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.

Colon cancer is a common and preventable cancer in the USA and testing for colon cancer can be done at home with a simple test. Yet, many people remain unscreened. This is particularly true for people who may not have ready access to health care, such as those who have limited incomes or resources or who live in rural areas. Most people live close to a pharmacy and visit a pharmacy more frequently than a primary care office. Pharmacies commonly offer services beyond medication dispensing (e.g. flu shot, diabetes management), making them a potential avenue for increasing colon cancer screening. This study aimed to learn what patients think about receiving colon cancer screening through pharmacies. We interviewed 32 people who fit the age-range recommended for colon cancer screening. They were open to, even embracing of, getting screened for colon cancer through a pharmacy, primarily because of its convenience, accessibility, and because it would not require a co-pay. At the same time, they emphasized the need for privacy and coordination with their primary care provider. We concluded that colon cancer screening in pharmacies is potentially a good option for people, provided they have privacy and that their primary care providers are informed.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Risk Stratification for Colorectal Cancer Screening and Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: Since the early 2000s, there has been a rapid decline in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, due in large part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps. Despite these improvements, CRC remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, with approximately 53,000 deaths projected in 2023. The aim of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update Expert Review was to describe how individuals should be risk-stratified for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance and to highlight opportunities for future research to fill gaps in the existing literature. METHODS: This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: All individuals with a first-degree relative (defined as a parent, sibling, or child) who was diagnosed with CRC, particularly before the age of 50 years, should be considered at increased risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: All individuals without a personal history of CRC, inflammatory bowel disease, hereditary CRC syndromes, other CRC predisposing conditions, or a family history of CRC should be considered at average risk for CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Individuals at average risk for CRC should initiate screening at age 45 years and individuals at increased risk for CRC due to having a first-degree relative with CRC should initiate screening 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40 years, whichever is earlier. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Risk stratification for initiation of CRC screening should be based on an individual's age, a known or suspected predisposing hereditary CRC syndrome, and/or a family history of CRC. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: The decision to continue CRC screening in individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, screening history, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Screening options for individuals at average risk for CRC should include colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal immunochemical test, multitarget stool DNA fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography, based on availability and individual preference. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Colonoscopy should be the screening strategy used for individuals at increased CRC risk. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The decision to continue post-polypectomy surveillance for individuals older than 75 years should be individualized, based on an assessment of risks, benefits, and comorbidities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Risk-stratification tools for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance that emerge from research should be examined for real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in diverse populations (eg, by race, ethnicity, sex, and other sociodemographic factors associated with disparities in CRC outcomes) before widespread implementation.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. CONCLUSION: If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in US liver cancer care.

HCC, the most common form of primary liver cancer, is the fastest rising cause of cancer-related death in the United States. HCC disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. A practical framework is needed to organize the complex patient, provider, health system, and societal factors that drive these racial and ethnic disparities. In this narrative review, we adapted and applied the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to the HCC care continuum, as a step toward better understanding and addressing existing HCC-related disparities. We first summarize the literature on HCC-related disparities by race and ethnicity organized by the framework's 5 domains (biological, behavioral, physical/built environment, sociocultural environment, and health care system) and 4 levels (individual, interpersonal, community, and societal) of influence. We then offer strategies to guide future research initiatives toward promotion of health equity in HCC care. Clinicians and researchers may help mitigate further inequities and better address racial and ethnic disparities in HCC care by prioritizing the following in HCC research: (1) increasing racial and ethnic minority representation, (2) collecting and reporting HCC-related data by racial and ethnic subgroups, (3) assessing the patient experience of HCC care by race and ethnicity, and (4) evaluating HCC-specific social determinants of health by race and ethnicity. These 4 priorities will help inform the development of future programs and interventions that are tailored to the unique experiences of each racial and ethnic group.

Association Between Patient-Level, Clinic-Level, and Geographical-Level Factors and 1-Year Surveillance Colonoscopy Adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection for patients with stages I-III colorectal cancer (CRC) is suboptimal, and data on factors associated with lack of adherence are limited. Using surveillance colonoscopy data from Washington state, we aimed to determine the patient, clinic, and geographical factors associated with adherence. METHODS: Using administrative insurance claims linked to Washington cancer registry data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients diagnosed with stage I-III CRC between 2011 and 2018 with continuous insurance for at least 18 months after diagnosis. We determined the adherence rate to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy and conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with completion. RESULTS: Of 4,481 patients with stage I-III CRC identified, 55.8% completed a 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. The median time to colonoscopy completion was 370 days. On multivariate analysis, older age, higher-stage CRC, Medicare insurance or multiple insurance carriers, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and living without a partner were significantly associated with decreased adherence to 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Among 29 eligible clinics, 51% (n = 15) reported lower-than-expected surveillance colonoscopy rates based on patient mix. DISCUSSION: Surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after surgical resection is suboptimal in Washington state. Patient and clinic factors, but not geographic factors (Area Deprivation Index), were significantly associated with surveillance colonoscopy completion. These data will inform the development of patient-level and clinic-level interventions to address an important quality-of-care issue across Washington.

Tools to Measure the Impact of Structural Racism and Discrimination on Gastrointestinal and Hepatology Disease Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Structural racism and discrimination (SRD) are important upstream determinants of health perpetuated by discriminatory laws and policies. Therefore, measuring SRD and its impact on health is critical to developing interventions that address resultant health disparities. We aimed to identify gastrointestinal (GI) or liver studies that report measures of SRD or interventions to achieve health equity in these domains by addressing upstream determinants of health. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping reviews guidelines. Studies that used an SRD measure or examined an upstream intervention in GI or liver disease were included. Studies that described health disparities in GI or liver conditions without mentioning SRD were excluded. Study characteristics, findings, and limitations were extracted. RESULTS: Forty-six articles (19 studies using SRD measures and 27 studies of upstream interventions) were identified. Measures of residential racial segregation were reported most frequently. SRD was associated with poorer health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority populations. Although upstream intervention studies focused primarily on policies related to colon cancer screening and organ graft allocation, racial and ethnic disparities often persisted post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve health equity in GI and liver conditions, there is an urgent need for research that goes beyond describing health disparities to incorporating measures of SRD and implementing interventions that address this understudied determinant of health.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: A survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of five national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastroenterology and hepatology: a survey of where we stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: A Survey of Where We Stand.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In the setting of increasing attention to representation in medicine, we aimed to assess current perspectives of racial and ethnic workforce diversity and health care disparities among gastroenterology (GI) and hepatology professionals in the United States. METHODS: We developed and administered a 33-item electronic cross-sectional survey to members of 5 national GI and hepatology societies. Survey items were organized into thematic modules and solicited perspectives on racial and ethnic workforce diversity, health care disparities in GI and hepatology, and potential interventions to enhance workforce diversity and improve health equity. RESULTS: Of the 1219 survey participants, 62.3% were male, 48.7% were non-Hispanic White, and 19.9% were from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. The most frequently reported barriers to increasing racial and ethnic diversity in GI and hepatology were insufficient representation of underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups in the education and training pipeline (n = 431 [35.4%]), in professional leadership (n = 340 [27.9%]), and among practicing GI and hepatology professionals (n = 324 [26.6%]). Suggested interventions were to increase career mentorship opportunities (n = 545 [44.7%]), medical student opportunities (n = 520 [42.7%]), and program and professional society leadership roles for underrepresented racial and ethnic minority groups (n = 473 [38.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Our survey explored imperative and timely perspectives on racial and ethnic representation and health equity among professionals in GI and hepatology. The findings should inform future interventions to address workforce diversity and establish priorities toward improving health equity, ultimately serving as a springboard for professional societies, academic institutions, and other organizations that aim to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in our field.

Barriers associated with inadequate follow-up of abnormal fecal immunochemical test results in a safety-net system: A mixed-methods analysis.

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50-75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.

Operationalizing a Rideshare Intervention for Colonoscopy Completion: Barriers, Facilitators, and Process Recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Transportation is a common barrier to colonoscopy completion for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The study aims to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process recommendations to implement a rideshare non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) intervention following colonoscopy completion within a safety-net healthcare setting. METHODS: We used informal stakeholder engagement, story boards - a novel user-centered design technique, listening sessions and the nominal group technique to identify the barriers, facilitators, and process to implementing a rideshare NEMT program following colonoscopy completion in a large safety-net healthcare system. RESULTS: Barriers to implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention for colonoscopy completion included: inability to expand an existing NEMT program beyond Medicaid patients and lack of patient chaperones with rideshare NEMT programs. Facilitators included: commercially available rideshare NEMT platforms that were lower cost and had shorter wait times than the alternative of taxis. Operationalizing and implementing a rideshare NEMT intervention in our healthcare system required the following steps: 1) identifying key stakeholders, 2) engaging stakeholder groups in discussion to identify barriers and solutions, 3) obtaining institutional sign-off, 4) developing a process for reviewing and selecting a rideshare NEMT program, 5) executing contracts, 6) developing a standard operating procedure and 7) training clinic staff to use the rideshare platform. DISCUSSION: Rideshare NEMT after procedural sedation is administered may improve colonoscopy completion rates and provide one solution to inadequate CRC screening. If successful, our rideshare model could be broadly applicable to other safety-net health systems, populations with high social needs, and settings where procedural sedation is administered.

Analysis of Speaker Introduction Formality by Gender at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Annual Scientific Meeting.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based differences in the use of professional titles during speaker introductions have been described in other medical specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker introductions at the American College of Gastroenterology 2020 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. Our secondary aim was to assess gender-based differences in the formality of speaker self-introductions. METHODS: Reviewed presentations from the American College of Gastroenterology Annual Meeting for gender-based differences in professional title use during speaker introductions and self-introductions. RESULTS: Speakers included 29 women (37.2%) and 49 men (62.8%). We found no significant gender differences in the use of professional titles by introducers (t(67) = - 0.775, p = 0.441) or in self-introductions (36.4% of women vs. 41.9% of men, t(63) = 0.422, p = 0.674). CONCLUSION: The lack of gender differences in professional title use may represent a novel advantage of virtual meeting formats or suggest increased attention to gender bias in introductions.