Depression and Anxiety Are Common Among Patients With Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Depression and anxiety can have negative effects on patients and are important to treat. There have been few studies of their prevalence among patients with cirrhosis. We aimed to characterize the prevalence and risk factors for depression and anxiety in a large multi-center cohort of patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted a telephone-based survey of patients with cirrhosis at 3 health systems in the United States (a tertiary-care referral center, a safety net system, and a Veterans hospital) from April through December 2018. Of 2871 patients approached, 1021 (35.6%) completed the survey. Depression and anxiety were assessed using the PHQ-9 (range 0-25) and STAI (range 20-80) instruments, with clinically significant values defined as PHQ-9 ≥15 and STAI ≥40. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with significant depression and anxiety. RESULTS: The median PHQ-9 score was 7 (25th percentile-75th percentile, 3-12) and the median STAI score was 33 (25th percentile-75th percentile, 23-47); 15.6% of patients had moderately severe to severe depression and 42.6% of patients had high anxiety. In multivariable analyses, self-reported poor health (odds ratio [OR], 4.08; 95% CI, 1.79-9.28), being widowed (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.07-4.05), fear of hepatocellular carcinoma (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.04-3.42), higher household income (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.95), and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97) were associated with moderately severe to severe depression. Male sex (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98), self-reported poor health (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.73-4.32), and fear of hepatocellular carcinoma (OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.33-3.78) were associated with high anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 6 patients with cirrhosis have moderately severe to severe depression and nearly half have moderate-severe anxiety. Patients with cirrhosis should be evaluated for both of these disorders.

A randomized trial of mail and email recruitment strategies for a physician survey on clinical trial accrual.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal. A challenge to capturing physicians' insights about trials has been low response to surveys. We conducted a study using varying combinations of mail and email to recruit a nationally representative sample of medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists to complete a survey on trial accrual. METHODS: We randomly assigned eligible physicians identified from the American Medical Association MasterFile (n = 13,251) to mail- or email-based recruitment strategies. Mail-based recruitment included a survey packet with: (1) cover letter describing the survey and inviting participation; (2) paper copy of the survey and postage-paid return envelope; and (3) a web link for completing the survey online. Email-based recruitment included an e-mail describing the survey and inviting participation, along with the web link to the survey, and a reminder postcard 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Response was higher for mail-based (11.8, 95% CI 11.0-12.6%) vs. email-based (4.5, 95% CI 4.0-5.0%) recruitment. In email-based recruitment, only one-quarter of recipients opened the email, and even fewer clicked on the link to complete the survey. Most physicians in mail-based recruitment responded after the first invitation (362 of 770 responders, 47.0%). A higher proportion of responders vs. non-responders were young (ages 25-44 years), men, and radiation or surgical (vs. medical) oncologists. CONCLUSIONS: Most physicians assigned to mail-based recruitment actually completed the survey online via the link provided in the cover letter, and those in email-based recruitment did not respond until they received a reminder postcard by mail. Providing the option to return a paper survey or complete it online may have further increased participation in the mail-based group, and future studies should examine how combinations of delivery mode and return options affect physicians' response to surveys.

Outcomes associated with use of the Cancer Risk Intake System among primary care safety-net patients identified as needing colorectal cancer screening.

Despite demonstrated primary and secondary prevention benefits, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is sub-optimal. We implemented the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) among a convenience sample of patients presenting for primary care in Dallas County safety-net clinics. CRIS, which assesses individuals' CRC risks and generates guideline-based screening recommendations for them and their providers, had been found in a randomized trial to facilitate risk-based screening, compared to usual care. Here, of 924 patients ages ≥50 who used CRIS, 699 were identified as needing screening, with 39.2% needing colonoscopy rather than FIT. However, following use of CRIS and patients' and providers' receipt of guideline-concordant recommendations, 20.9% elevated-risk patients received no screening orders, only 44.1% received guideline-concordant colonoscopy orders, and less than half of these (48.4%) completed colonoscopy. Guideline-concordant screening orders were more common for average-risk patients (62.5% received orders for FIT and 26.6% for colonoscopy). However, like their elevated-risk counterparts who received screening orders, more than half of average-risk patients in each order group (52.3% for FIT and 52.8% for colonoscopy) did not complete screening. We found no correlates for receiving screening orders, but higher comorbidity scores were associated with less screening completion among the average-risk group. We had hoped CRIS would facilitate risk-based screening but, although orders for and receipt of colonoscopy were more common for elevated- than average-risk patients, they were still suboptimal in this clinical setting with a "FIT-first" strategy. A stronger intervention may be necessary to increase guideline-concordant recommendations and screening among patients 50 and older.

Mailed Outreach Invitations Significantly Improve HCC Surveillance Rates in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance is associated with early tumor detection and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis; however, effectiveness is limited by underuse. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach and patient navigation strategies to increase HCC surveillance in a racially diverse cohort of patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial comparing mailed outreach for screening ultrasound (n = 600), mailed outreach plus patient navigation (n = 600), or usual care with visit-based screening (n = 600) among 1800 patients with cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 to March 2017. Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received reminder telephone calls. Patient navigation included an assessment of barriers to surveillance and encouragement of surveillance participation. The primary outcome was HCC surveillance (abdominal imaging every 6 months) over an 18-month period. All 1800 patients were included in intention-to-screen analyses. HCC surveillance was performed in 23.3% of outreach/navigation patients, 17.8% of outreach-alone patients, and 7.3% of usual care patients. HCC surveillance was 16.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.0%-20.0%) and 10.5% (95% CI: 6.8%-14.2%) higher in outreach groups than usual care (P < 0.001 for both) and 5.5% (95% CI: 0.9%-10.1%) higher for outreach/navigation than outreach alone (P = 0.02). Both interventions increased HCC surveillance across predefined patient subgroups. The proportion of HCC patients detected at an early stage did not differ between groups; however, a higher proportion of patients with screen-detected HCC across groups had early-stage tumors than those with HCC detected incidentally or symptomatically (83.3% versus 30.8%, P = 0.003). Conclusion: Mailed outreach invitations and navigation significantly increased HCC surveillance versus usual care in patients with cirrhosis.

Screening initiation with FIT or colonoscopy: Post-hoc analysis of a pragmatic, randomized trial.

Screening with FIT or colonoscopy can reduce CRC mortality. In our pragmatic, randomized trial of screening outreach over three years, patients annually received mailed FITs or colonoscopy invitations. We examined screening initiation after each mailing and crossover from the invited to other modality. Eligible patients (50-64 years, ≥1 primary-care visit before randomization, and no history of CRC) received mailed FIT kits (n = 2400) or colonoscopy invitations (n = 2400) from March 2013 through July 2016. Among those invited for colonoscopy, we used multinomial logistic regression to identify factors associated with screening initiation with colonoscopy vs. FIT vs. no screening after the first mailing. Most patients were female (61.8%) and Hispanic (48.9%) or non-Hispanic black (24.0%). Among those invited for FIT, 56.6% (n = 1359) initiated with FIT, whereas 3.3% (n = 78) crossed over to colonoscopy; 151 (15.7%) and 61 (7.7%) initiated with FIT after second and third mailings. Among those invited for colonoscopy, 25.5% (n = 613) initiated with colonoscopy whereas 18.8% (n = 452) crossed over to FIT; 112 (8.4%) and 48 (4.2%) initiated with colonoscopy after second and third mailings. Three or more primary-care visits prior to randomization were associated with initiating with colonoscopy (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.17-1.91) and crossing over to FIT (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19-2.23). Although nearly half of patients initiated screening after the first mailing, few non-responders in either outreach group initiated after a second or third mailing. More patients invited to colonoscopy crossed over to FIT than those assigned to FIT crossed over to colonoscopy.

Identifying quality improvement targets to facilitate colorectal cancer screening completion.

The colorectal cancer (CRC) screening process involves multiple interfaces (communication exchanges and transfers of responsibility for specific actions) among primary care and gastroenterology providers, laboratory, and administrative staff. After a retrospective electronic health record (EHR) analysis discovered substantial clinic variation and low CRC screening prevalence overall in an urban, integrated safety-net system, we launched a qualitative analysis to identify potential quality improvement targets to enhance fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, the system's preferred screening modality. Here, we report examination of organization-, clinic-, and provider-level interfaces over a three-year period (December 2011-October 2014). We deployed in parallel 3 qualitative data collection methods: (1) structured observation (90+ hours, 10 sites); (2) document analysis (n > 100); and (3) semi-structured interviews (n = 41) and conducted iterative thematic analysis in which findings from each method cross-informed subsequent data collection. Thematic analysis was guided by a conceptual model and applied deductive and inductive codes. There was substantial variation in protocols for distributing and returning FIT kits both within and across clinics. Providers, clinic and laboratory staff had differing access to important data about FIT results based on clinical information system used and this affected results reporting. Communication and coordination during electronic referrals for diagnostic colonoscopy was suboptimal particularly for co-morbid patients needing anesthesia clearance. Our multi-level approach elucidated organizational deficiencies not evident by quantitative analysis alone. Findings indicate potential quality improvement intervention targets including: (1) best-practices implementation across clinics; (2) detailed communication to providers about FIT results; and (3) creation of EHR alerts to resolve pending colonoscopy referrals before they expire.

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC incidence and mortality, but measuring screening adherence over time is challenging. We examined adherence using a novel measure characterizing the proportion of time covered (PTC) by screening tests. METHODS: Eligible patients were age 50 to 60 years and followed at a large, safety-net health care system between January 2010 and September 2014. We estimated PTC as the number of days up to date with screening divided by the number of days from cohort entry until study end, CRC diagnosis, or death. We estimated mean and median PTC and used least-significant difference tests to assess differences in adherence by patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of 18,257 patients, most were non-Hispanic black (40.5%) or Hispanic (34.9%) and/or female (62.4%). Approximately 40% (n = 7559) were never screened during the study period; the remaining 10,698 patients completed 19,105 screening examinations (14,481 fecal immunochemical tests [FITs], 4393 colonoscopies, 94 sigmoidoscopies, and 137 barium enemas). Overall, the mean PTC was 29.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.6%-29.5%). Among those who completed at least one screening test (n = 10,698), the mean PTC was 49.0% (95% CI, 48.5%-49.5%). The most common reasons for non-adherence were lack of repeat FIT and no diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal results for the FIT. The mean PTC increased with the number of primary care visits (0 visits, 21%; 1 visit, 29%; 2-3 visits, 35%; ≥4 visits, 37%; all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: PTC provides a reliable estimate of screening adherence, capturing breakdowns in the CRC screening process amenable to intervention. Repeat FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy are important intervention targets that may increase adherence in underserved populations.

Effect of Colonoscopy Outreach vs Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach on Colorectal Cancer Screening Completion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach is more effective than colonoscopy outreach for increasing 1-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but long-term effectiveness may need repeat testing and timely follow-up for abnormal results. Objective: Compare the effectiveness of FIT outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase completion of the CRC screening process (screening initiation and follow-up) within 3 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic randomized clinical trial from March 2013 to July 2016 among 5999 participants aged 50 to 64 years who were receiving primary care in Parkland Health and Hospital System and were not up to date with CRC screenings. Interventions: Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mailed colonoscopy outreach (n = 2400), or usual care with clinic-based screening (n = 1199). Outreach included processes to promote repeat annual testing for individuals in the FIT outreach group with normal results and completion of diagnostic and screening colonoscopy for those with an abnormal FIT result or assigned to colonoscopy outreach. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was screening process completion, defined as adherence to colonoscopy completion, annual testing for a normal FIT result, diagnostic colonoscopy for an abnormal FIT result, or treatment evaluation if CRC was detected. Secondary outcomes included detection of any adenoma or advanced neoplasia (including CRC) and screening-related harms (including bleeding or perforation). Results: All 5999 participants (median age, 56 years; women, 61.9%) were included in the intention-to-screen analyses. Screening process completion was 38.4% in the colonoscopy outreach group, 28.0% in the FIT outreach group, and 10.7% in the usual care group. Compared with the usual care group, between-group differences for completion were higher for both outreach groups (27.7% [95% CI, 25.1% to 30.4%] for the colonoscopy outreach group; 17.3% [95% CI, 14.8% to 19.8%] for FIT outreach group), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (10.4% [95% CI, 7.8% to 13.1%] for the colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group; P < .001 for all comparisons). Compared with usual care, the between-group differences in adenoma and advanced neoplasia detection rates were higher for both outreach groups (colonoscopy outreach group: 10.3% [95% CI, 9.5% to 12.1%] for adenoma and 3.1% [95% CI, 2.0% to 4.1%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons; FIT outreach group: 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.8%] for adenoma and 0.7% [95% CI, -0.2% to 1.6%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .08 and P < .13, respectively), and highest in the colonoscopy outreach group (colonoscopy outreach group vs FIT outreach group: 9.0% [95% CI, 7.3% to 10.7%] for adenoma and 2.4% [95% CI, 1.3% to 3.3%] for advanced neoplasia, P < .001 for both comparisons). There were no screening-related harms in any groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among persons aged 50 to 64 years receiving primary care at a safety-net institution, mailed outreach invitations offering FIT or colonoscopy compared with usual care increased the proportion completing CRC screening process within 3 years. The rate of screening process completion was higher with colonoscopy than FIT outreach. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01710215.

Recommendation of colorectal cancer testing among primary care patients younger than 50 with elevated risk.

In the era of precision medicine, efforts are needed to identify and tailor screening recommendations among elevated-risk patients. Individuals younger than 50years are an important target population, as they comprise 15% of colorectal (CRC) cases and often present with more advanced disease than their 50+ counterparts. In this large study, 2470 patients ages 25-49 used a tablet-based program that assessed risks, matched risks with screening guidelines, and generated tailored printed guideline-concordant recommendations for patients and their providers. The tablet-based program identified 121 (4.9%) patients with risk factors warranting screening before age 50. Likelihood of risk warranting screening was greater for ages 40-49 than <40years (OR: 2.38), females than males (OR: 1.82), and African Americans (OR: 1.69) and non-Hispanic Whites (OR: 2.89) compared to Hispanics. Most common risk factors were family history of polyps (23.1%), personal history of inflammatory bowel disease (19.8%), and combined family history of CRC+polyps (18.2%). Receipt of guideline-concordant screening within 6months of identification was low, including only 5.3% of those who needed colonoscopy and 13.3% for whom colonoscopy or FIT was recommended. Although elevated-risk patients younger than 50years can be readily identified, more than notification is necessary to facilitate screening participation.

Reasons for Lack of Diagnostic Colonoscopy After Positive Result on Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Safety-Net Health System.

BACKGROUND: Effective colorectal cancer screening depends on timely diagnostic evaluation in patients with abnormal results on fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). Although prior studies suggest low rates of follow-up colonoscopy, there is little information among patients in safety-net health systems and few data characterizing reasons for low follow-up rates. This study aimed to characterize factors contributing to lack of follow-up colonoscopy in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients with abnormal results on FIT ("abnormal FIT" for brevity) receiving care in an integrated safety-net health system. METHODS: We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of patients aged 50-64 years with abnormal FIT at a population-based safety-net health system between January 2010 and July 2013. Review of electronic medical records focused on patients without follow-up colonoscopy to characterize patient-, provider-, and system-level reasons for lack of diagnostic evaluation. We used logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of follow-up colonoscopy within 12 months of abnormal FIT. RESULTS: Of 1267 patients with abnormal FIT, 536 (42.3%) failed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year. Failure was attributable to patient-level factors in 307 (57%) cases, provider factors in 97 (18%) cases, and system factors in 118 (22%) cases. In multivariate analysis, follow-up colonoscopy was less likely among those aged 61-64 years (odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.87) compared with 50-55 year olds. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half (42%) of patients with abnormal FIT failed to undergo follow-up colonoscopy within 1 year. Lack of diagnostic evaluation is related to a combination of patient-, provider-, and system-level factors, highlighting the need for multilevel interventions to improve follow-up colonoscopy completion rates.

An assessment of benefits and harms of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in patients with cirrhosis.

Although surveillance ultrasound and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) tests have minimal direct harm, downstream harms from follow-up tests must be weighed against surveillance benefits when determining the value of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening programs. Our study's aims were to characterize prevalence and correlates of surveillance benefits and harms in cirrhosis patients undergoing HCC surveillance. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among patients with cirrhosis followed at a safety-net health system between July 2010 and July 2013. We recorded surveillance-related benefits, defined as early tumor detection and curative treatment, and surveillance-related physical harms, defined as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans, biopsies, or other procedures performed for false-positive or indeterminate surveillance results. Sociodemographic and clinical correlates of surveillance harms were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. We identified 680 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 78 (11.5%) developed HCC during the 3-year study period. Of the 48 (61.5%) HCCs identified by surveillance, 43.8% were detected by ultrasound, 31.2% by AFP, and 25.0% by both surveillance tests. Surveillance-detected patients had a higher proportion of early HCC (70.2% vs. 40.0%; P = 0.009), with no difference in tumor stage between ultrasound- and AFP-detected tumors (P = 0.53). Surveillance-related physical harms were observed in 187 (27.5%) patients, with a higher proportion of ultrasound-related harm than AFP-related harm (22.8% vs. 11.4%; P < 0.001). Surveillance-related harms were associated with elevated ALT (odds ratio [OR], 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-2.76), thrombocytopenia (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.26-3.38), and hepatology subspecialty care (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.09-2.42). CONCLUSION: Over one fourth of patients with cirrhosis experience physical harm for false-positive or indeterminate surveillance tests-more often related to ultrasound than AFP. Interventions are needed to reduce surveillance-related harm to increase the value of HCC screening programs in clinical practice. (Hepatology 2017;65:1196-1205).

Mailed Outreach Program Increases Ultrasound Screening of Patients With Cirrhosis for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Surveillance of patients with cirrhosis increases early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and prolongs survival. However, its effectiveness is limited by underuse, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status. We compared the effectiveness of mailed outreach strategies, with and without patient navigation, in increasing the numbers of patients with cirrhosis undergoing surveillance for HCC in a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients with documented or suspected cirrhosis at a large safety-net health system from December 2014 through March 2016. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1:1) to groups that received mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination (n = 600), mailed invitations for an ultrasound screening examination and patient navigation (barrier assessment and motivational education for patients who declined screening; n = 600), or usual care (visit-based screening; n = 600). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received up to 3 reminder telephone calls. The primary outcome was completion of abdominal imaging within 6 months of randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among groups. Cirrhosis was documented, based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision, codes, for 79.6% of patients, and suspected, based on noninvasive markers of fibrosis, for 20.4%. In an intent-to-treat analysis, significantly greater proportions of patients who received the mailed invitation and navigation (47.2%) or the mailed invitation alone (44.5%) underwent HCC screening than patients who received usual care (24.3%) (P < .001 for both comparisons). However, screening rates did not differ significantly between outreach the outreach groups (P = .25). The effects of the outreach program were consistent in all subgroups, including Caucasian vs non-Caucasian race, documented vs suspected cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A vs B cirrhosis, and receipt of gastroenterology care. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found outreach strategies to double the percentage of patients with cirrhosis who underwent ultrasound screening for HCC. However, adding patient navigation to telephone reminders provided no significant additional benefit. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02312817.

Tailored information increases patient/physician discussion of colon cancer risk and testing: The Cancer Risk Intake System trial.

Assess whether receipt of tailored printouts generated by the Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) - a touch-screen computer program that collects data from patients and generates printouts for patients and physicians - results in more reported patient-provider discussions about colorectal cancer (CRC) risk and screening than receipt of non-tailored information. Cluster-randomized trial, randomized by physician, with data collected via CRIS prior to visit and 2-week follow-up telephone survey among 623 patients. Patients aged 25-75 with upcoming primary-care visits and eligible for, but currently non-adherent to CRC screening guidelines. Patient-reported discussions with providers about CRC risk and testing. Tailored recipients were more likely to report patient-physician discussions about personal and familial risk, stool testing, and colonoscopy (all p < 0.05). Tailored recipients were more likely to report discussions of: chances of getting cancer (+ 10%); family history (+ 15%); stool testing (+ 9%); and colonoscopy (+ 8%) (all p < 0.05). CRIS is a promising strategy for facilitating discussions about testing in primary-care settings.

Validity of Single-Item Screening for Limited Health Literacy in English and Spanish Speakers.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate 3 single-item screening measures for limited health literacy in a community-based population of English and Spanish speakers. METHODS: We recruited 324 English and 314 Spanish speakers from a community research registry in Dallas, Texas, enrolled between 2009 and 2012. We used 3 screening measures: (1) How would you rate your ability to read?; (2) How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?; and (3) How often do you have someone help you read hospital materials? In analyses stratified by language, we used area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves to compare each item with the validated 40-item Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. RESULTS: For English speakers, no difference was seen among the items. For Spanish speakers, "ability to read" identified inadequate literacy better than "help reading hospital materials" (AUROC curve = 0.76 vs 0.65; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: The "ability to read" item performed the best, supporting use as a screening tool in safety-net systems caring for diverse populations. Future studies should investigate how to implement brief measures in safety-net settings and whether highlighting health literacy level influences providers' communication practices and patient outcomes.

Outreach invitations for FIT and colonoscopy improve colorectal cancer screening rates: A randomized controlled trial in a safety-net health system.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is limited by underuse, particularly among underserved populations. Among a racially diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort of patients, the authors compared the effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and colonoscopy outreach to increase screening participation rates, compared with usual visit-based care. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 64 years who were not up-to-date with CRC screening but used primary care services in a large safety-net health system were randomly assigned to mailed FIT outreach (2400 patients), mailed colonoscopy outreach (2400 patients), or usual care with opportunistic visit-based screening (1199 patients). Patients who did not respond to outreach invitations within 2 weeks received follow-up telephone reminders. The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics across the 3 groups were similar. Using intention-to-screen analysis, screening participation rates were higher for FIT outreach (58.8%) and colonoscopy outreach (42.4%) than usual care (29.6%) (P <.001 for both). Screening participation with FIT outreach was higher than that for colonoscopy outreach (P <.001). Among responders, FIT outreach had a higher percentage of patients who responded before reminders (59.0% vs 29.7%; P <.001). Nearly one-half of patients in the colonoscopy outreach group crossed over to complete FIT via usual care, whereas <5% of patients in the FIT outreach group underwent usual-care colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Mailed outreach invitations appear to significantly increase CRC screening rates among underserved populations. In the current study, FIT-based outreach was found to be more effective than colonoscopy-based outreach to increase 1-time screening participation. Studies with longer follow-up are needed to compare the effectiveness of outreach strategies for promoting completion of the entire screening process.

Development of the Parkland-UT Southwestern Colonoscopy Reporting System (CoRS) for evidence-based colon cancer surveillance recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Through colonoscopy, polyps can be identified and removed to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Appropriate use of surveillance colonoscopy, post polypectomy, is a focus of healthcare reform. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed and implemented the first electronic medical record-based colonoscopy reporting system (CoRS) that matches endoscopic findings with guideline-consistent surveillance recommendations and generates tailored results and recommendation letters for patients and providers. RESULTS: In its first year, CoRS was used in 98.6% of indicated cases. Via a survey, colonoscopists agreed/strongly agreed it is easy to use (83%), provides guideline-based recommendations (89%), improves quality of Spanish letters (94%), they would recommend it for other institutions (78%), and it made their work easier (61%), and led to improved practice (56%). DISCUSSION: CoRS' widespread adoption and acceptance likely resulted from stakeholder engagement throughout the development and implementation process. CONCLUSION: CoRS is well-accepted by clinicians and provides guideline-based recommendations and results communications to patients and providers.

Impact of Risk Assessment and Tailored versus Nontailored Risk Information on Colorectal Cancer Testing in Primary Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is effective but underused. Guidelines for which tests are recommended and at what intervals depend on specific risks. We developed a tablet-based Cancer Risk Intake System (CRIS) that asks questions about risk prior to appointments and generates tailored printouts for patients and physicians summarizing and matching risk factors with guideline-based recommendations. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial among patients who: (i) used CRIS and they and their physicians received tailored printouts; (ii) used CRIS to answer questions but received standard information about cancer screening while their physicians received a standard electronic chart prompt indicating they were age-eligible but not currently adherent for colorectal cancer screening; or (iii) comprised a no-contact group that neither used CRIS nor received any information while their physicians received the standard prompt. Participation in testing was assessed via electronic medical record at 12 months. RESULTS: Participation in any colorectal cancer testing was three times higher for those who used the CRIS and received any printed materials, compared with no-contact controls (47% vs. 16%; P < 0.0001). Among CRIS users ages 50 and older, participation in any testing was higher in the tailored group (53% vs. 44%, P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Use of CRIS and receipt of any information facilitated participation in testing. There was more testing participation in the CRIS-tailored than nontailored group. IMPACT: Asking patients questions about their specific risk factors and giving them and their providers information just prior to an appointment may increase participation in colorectal cancer testing. Tailoring the information has some added benefit.

Impediments and facilitators to physical activity and perceptions of sedentary behavior among urban community residents: the Fair Park Study.

INTRODUCTION: Insufficient physical activity is an established risk factor for numerous chronic diseases and for premature death. Accumulating evidence reveals that prolonged sedentary time is detrimental, independent of the protective effects of physical activity. Although studies have explored correlates of physical activity among ethnic minority populations, few have examined factors related to sedentary behavior. Therefore, we conducted a preliminary investigation into urban adults' perceptions of sedentary behavior alongside perceived barriers and enablers to physical activity. METHODS: In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to evaluate perceptions of physical activity and sedentary behavior in a sample of low-income, ethnic minority adults. The framework approach guided researchers in analyzing the qualitative data. RESULTS: Participants were well aware of the positive health benefits of physical activity. However, most admitted not regularly engaging in physical activity and cited numerous barriers to activity, such as lack of time, insufficient finances, and neighborhood crime. Enablers included weight loss, the presence of social support, and the availability of safe parks conducive to exercise. In comparison, participants were primarily unfamiliar with the term "sedentary behavior" and did not perceive a relationship between sedentary behavior and health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our findings illustrate the need to increase the awareness of negative health implications of prolonged sedentary time while continuing to address the multiple impediments to physical activity as a way to combat chronic disease.