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.

Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Reduce Health Disparities in Hepatitis C Screening: A Pre-Post Analysis.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in persons born from 1945 to 1965 has had limited adoption despite guidelines, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged patients, who have a higher prevalence of disease burden. We examined the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve HCV screening in a large safety-net health system. We performed a multifaceted intervention that included provider and patient education, an electronic medical record-enabled best practice alert, and increased HCV treatment capacity. We characterized HCV screening completion before and after the intervention. To identify correlates of HCV screening, we performed logistic regression for the preintervention and postintervention groups and used a generalized linear mixed model for patients observed in both preintervention and postintervention time frames. Before the intervention, 10.1% of 48,755 eligible baby boomer patients were screened. After the intervention, 34.6% of the 34,093 eligible baby boomers were screened (P < 0.0001). Prior to the intervention, HCV screening was lower among older baby boomers and providers with large patient panels and higher in high-risk subgroups including those with signs of liver disease (e.g., elevated transaminases, thrombocytopenia), human immunodeficiency virus-positive patients, and homeless patients. Postintervention, we observed increased screening uptake in older baby boomers, providers with larger patient panel size, and patients with more than one prior primary care appointment. Conclusion: Our multifaceted intervention significantly increased HCV screening, particularly among older patients, those engaged in primary care, and providers with large patient panels.

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.

Association of Scheduled vs Emergency-Only Dialysis With Health Outcomes and Costs in Undocumented Immigrants With End-stage Renal Disease.

Importance: In 40 of 50 US states, scheduled dialysis is withheld from undocumented immigrants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD); instead, they receive intermittent emergency-only dialysis to treat life-threatening manifestations of ESRD. However, the comparative effectiveness of scheduled dialysis vs emergency-only dialysis and the influence of treatment on health outcomes, utilization, and costs is uncertain. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of scheduled vs emergency-only dialysis with regard to health outcomes, utilization, and costs in undocumented immigrants with ESRD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 181 eligible adults with ESRD receiving emergency-only dialysis in Dallas, Texas, who became newly eligible and applied for private commercial health insurance in February 2015; 105 received coverage and were enrolled in scheduled dialysis; 76 were not enrolled in insurance for nonclinical reasons (eg, lack of capacity at a participating outpatient dialysis center) and remained uninsured, receiving emergency-only dialysis. We examined data on eligible persons during a 6-month period prior to enrollment (baseline period, August 1, 2014-January 31, 2015) until 12 months after enrollment (follow-up period, March 1, 2015-February 29, 2016), with an intervening 1-month washout period (February 2015). All participants were undocumented immigrants; self-reported data on immigration status was collected from Parkland Hospital electronic health records. Exposures: Enrollment in private health insurance coverage and scheduled dialysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: We used enrollment in health insurance and scheduled dialysis to estimate the influence of scheduled dialysis on 1-year mortality, utilization, and health care costs, using a propensity score-adjusted, intention-to-treat approach, including time-to-event analyses for mortality, difference-in-differences (DiD) negative binomial regression analyses for utilization, and DiD gamma generalized linear regression for health care costs. Results: Of 181 eligible adults with ESRD, 105 (65 men, 40 women; mean age, 45 years) received scheduled dialysis and 76 (38 men, 38 women; mean age, 52 years) received emergency-only dialysis. Compared with emergency-only dialysis, scheduled dialysis was significantly associated with reduced mortality (3% vs 17%, P = .001; absolute risk reduction, 14%; number needed to treat, 7; adjusted hazard ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.2-18.2; P = .03), adjusted emergency department visits (-5.2 vs +1.1 visits/mo; DiD, -6.2; P < .001), adjusted hospitalizations (-2.1 vs -0.5 hospitalizations/6 months; DiD, -1.6; P < .001), adjusted hospital days (-9.2 vs +0.8 days/6 months; DiD, -9.9; P = .007), and adjusted costs (-$4316 vs +$1452 per person per month; DiD, -$5768; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, scheduled dialysis was significantly associated with reduced 1-year mortality, health care utilization, and costs compared with emergency-only dialysis. Scheduled dialysis should be the universal standard of care for all individuals with ESRD in the United States.

Cervical Cancer Burden and Opportunities for Prevention in a Safety-Net Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of cervical cancer at safety-net health systems requires careful analysis to best inform prevention and quality improvement efforts. We characterized cervical cancer burden and identified opportunities for prevention in a U.S. safety-net system. METHODS: We reviewed tumor registry and electronic health record (EHR) data of women with invasive cervical cancer with ages 18+, diagnosed between 2010 and 2015, in a large, integrated urban safety-net. We developed an algorithm to: (i) classify whether women had been engaged in care (≥1 clinical encounter between 6 months and 5 years before cancer diagnosis); and (ii) identify missed opportunities (no screening, no follow-up, failure of a test to detect cancer, and treatment failure) and associated factors among engaged patients. RESULTS: Of 419 women with cervical cancer, more than half (58%) were stage 2B or higher at diagnosis and 40% were uninsured. Most (69%) had no prior healthcare system contact; 47% were diagnosed elsewhere. Among 122 engaged in care prior to diagnosis, failure to screen was most common (63%), followed by lack of follow-up (21%), and failure of test to detect cancer (16%). Tumor stage, patient characteristics, and healthcare utilization differed across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Safety-net healthcare systems face a high cervical cancer burden, mainly from women with no prior contact with the system. To prevent or detect cancer early, community-based efforts should encourage uninsured women to use safety-nets for primary care and preventive services. IMPACT: Among engaged patients, strategies to increase screening and follow-up of abnormal screening tests could prevent over 80% of cervical cancer cases.

Effects of program scale-up on time to resolution for patients with abnormal screening mammography results.

PURPOSE: Effects of geographic program expansion to rural areas on screening program outcomes are understudied. We sought to determine whether time-to-resolution (TTR) varied significantly by service delivery time period, location, and participant characteristics across 19 North Texas counties. METHODS: We calculated proportions undergoing diagnostic follow-up and resolved ≤ 60 days. We calculated median TTR for each time period and abnormal result BI-RADS 0, 4, 5. Cox proportional hazards regressions estimated time period and patient characteristic effects on TTR. Wilcoxon rank sum tests evaluated whether TTR differed between women who did or did not transfer between counties for services. RESULTS: TTR ranged from 14 to 17 days for BI-RADs 0, 4, and 5; 12.4% transferred to a different county, resulting in longer median TTR (26 vs. 16 days; p < .001). Of those completing follow-up, 92% were resolved ≤ 60 days (median 15 days). For BI-RAD 3, TTR was 208 days (including required 180 day waiting period). Follow-up was significantly lower for women with BI-RAD 3 (59% vs. 96%; p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Expansion maintained timely service delivery, increasing access to screening among rural, uninsured women. Policies adding a separate quality metric for BI-RAD 3 could encourage follow-up monitoring to address lower completion and longer TTR among women with this result.

Cervical cancer screening among HIV-infected women in an urban, United States safety-net healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about cervical cancer screening and results patterns among HIV-infected (HIV+) women in real-world healthcare settings. We characterized two periods of screening opportunity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: US safety-net healthcare system in Dallas County, Texas. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data from electronic medical records (EMR) of 1490 HIV+ women receiving care 2010-2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline, we categorized a woman's Pap status 15 months prior to index date as under-screened (vs. screened), and cytology result (normal vs. abnormal). Then, we examined screening completion and results, and colposcopy uptake and results after an abnormal screen, in the subsequent 15-month period. RESULTS: More than half of women (56%) had no evidence of a Pap test (i.e. under-screened) at baseline. Under-screened women were more likely to be older (50-64 years), have diabetes, and unknown viral load; they were less likely to be Black, Hispanic, have Medicaid, recently pregnant, have a HIV clinic visit, or a CD4 cell count at least 200 cells/µl. Nearly half of under-screened women (46%, n = 383) remained under-screened in the subsequent 15 months. Among women under-screened at baseline who later completed screening and follow-up during the study period, 21 high-grade dysplasia and three cancers were diagnosed. Overall, 40% of women did not receive colposcopy when needed, with most failures to follow-up occurring in women who were under-screened at baseline. CONCLUSION: Most HIV+ women receiving care in a safety-net system did not receive sufficient screening for cervical cancer and remained at exceptionally high risk of developing high-grade dysplasia.

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.

County-level outcomes of a rural breast cancer screening outreach strategy: a decentralized hub-and-spoke model (BSPAN2).

Rural mammography screening remains suboptimal despite reimbursement programs for uninsured women. Networks linking non-clinical community organizations and clinical providers may overcome limited delivery infrastructure in rural areas. Little is known about how networks expand their service area. To evaluate a hub-and-spoke model to expand mammography services to 17 rural counties by assessing county-level delivery and local stakeholder conduct of outreach activities. We conducted a mixed-method evaluation using EMR data, systematic site visits (73 interviews, 51 organizations), 92 patient surveys, and 30 patient interviews. A two-sample t test compared the weighted monthly average of women served between hub- and spoke-led counties; nonparametric trend test evaluated time trend over the study period; Pearson chi-square compared sociodemographic data between hub- and spoke-led counties. From 2013 to 2014, the program screened 4603 underinsured women. Counties where local "spoke" organizations led outreach activities achieved comparable screening rates to hub-led counties (9.2 and 8.7, respectively, p = 0.984) and did not vary over time (p = 0.866). Qualitative analyses revealed influence of program champions, participant language preference, and stakeholders' concerns about uncompensated care. A program that leverages local organizations' ability to identify and reach rural underserved populations is a feasible approach for expanding preventive services delivery.

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.

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.

Elucidating patient-perceived role in "decision-making" among African Americans receiving lung cancer care through a county safety-net system.

PURPOSE: We explored patient-perceived role in "decision-making" related to active treatment and palliation among African Americans receiving lung cancer care through a county safety-net system. METHODS: Drawing from a cohort of over 100 African Americans treated in a safety-net hospital, we invited a subsample of 13 patient-caregiver dyads to participate in a series of dyadic, ethnographic interviews conducted at the patients' homes. Over 40 h of transcripts were analyzed in an iterative process resulting in reported themes. RESULTS: Findings from ethnographic interviews demonstrated that healthcare communication with physicians is difficult for patients. While caregivers and patients describe a deep engagement in lung cancer care, they expressed a concurrent lack of understanding of their prognosis and outcomes of treatment. Dyads did not discuss their lung cancer experience in terms of decision-making; rather, most articulated their role as following physician guidance. Distinct lack of understanding about disease course, severity, and prognosis may constrain patient perception of the need for informed decision-making over the course of care. CONCLUSIONS: Dyadic interviews detailing safety-net patient experiences of lung cancer care raise important questions about how clinicians, as well as researchers, conceptualize processes of informed decision-making in vulnerable populations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Safety-net patients may not perceive their role as involving informed decision-making and further may lack understanding of disease course and individual prognosis. Safety-net patient dyads expressed high involvement in care and a desire for clarity; clinicians should be prepared to clearly communicate disease stage and prognosis.

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.

Promoting HPV Vaccination in Safety-Net Clinics: A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate effects of a multicomponent intervention (human papillomavirus [HPV] vaccine-specific brochure and recalls) on HPV vaccination and secondarily examine if race/ethnicity moderates effects. METHODS: Unvaccinated girls aged 11 to 18 years attending 4 safety-net pediatric clinics and their parent/guardian (n = 814 dyads) were randomized to (1) active comparison (general adolescent vaccine brochure), or (2) intervention consisting of a HPV vaccine-specific brochure, telephone recalls to parents who declined, and recalls to patients overdue for doses 2 and 3. HPV 1-dose and 3-dose coverages were assessed via electronic health records 12 months after randomization. Multivariate logistic regressions estimated adjusted odds and marginal predicted vaccine coverage by study arm and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analyses found no main effect of the HPV vaccine-specific brochure on 1-dose coverage (42.0% vs 40.6%); however, secondary analyses found race/ethnicity was a significant moderator such that the intervention was effective only for Hispanic individuals (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-2.02), and not effective for black individuals (AOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41-1.13). Recalls to parents who declined the vaccine during the index visit were not effective, but recalls to patients overdue for doses 2 and 3 were effective at increasing 3-dose coverage regardless of race/ethnicity (AOR 1.99; 95% CI 1.16-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Educational materials describing only the HPV vaccine were effective for Hispanic but not black individuals. Future research should test mechanisms that may mediate intervention effects for different racial/ethnic groups, such as different informational needs or vaccine schemas (experiences, beliefs, norms).

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.

Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method.

Little is known about validity of self-reported mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors. Most studies have focused on accuracy among healthy, average-risk populations and none have assessed validity by electronic medical record (EMR) extraction method. To assess validity of survivor-reported mammography post-active treatment care, we surveyed all survivors diagnosed 2004-2009 in an academic hospital cancer registry (n = 1441). We used electronic query and manual review to extract EMR data. Concordance, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and report-to-records ratio were calculated by comparing survivors' self-reports to data from each extraction method. We also assessed average difference in months between mammography dates by source and correlates of concordance. Agreement between the two EMR extraction methods was high (concordance 0.90; kappa 0.70), with electronic query identifying more mammograms. Sensitivity was excellent (0.99) regardless of extraction method; concordance and positive predictive value were good; however, specificity was poor (manual review 0.20, electronic query 0.31). Report-to-records ratios were both over 1 suggesting over-reporting. We observed slight forward telescoping for survivors reporting mammograms 7-12 months prior to survey date. Higher educational attainment and less time since mammogram receipt were associated with greater concordance. Accuracy of survivors' self-reported mammograms was generally high with slight forward telescoping among those recalling their mammograms between 7 and 12 months prior to the survey date. Results are encouraging for clinicians and practitioners relying on survivor reports for surveillance care delivery and as a screening tool for inclusion in interventions promoting adherence to surveillance guidelines.

Effectiveness of a community research registry to recruit minority and underserved adults for health research.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting minorities and underserved populations into population-based studies is a long standing challenge. This study examined the feasibility of recruiting adults from a community research registry. METHODS: Ethnically diverse, bilingual staff attended health fairs, inviting adults to join a registry. We examined rates of successful contact, scheduling, and participation for studies that used the registry. RESULTS: Five studies queried 6,886 research registry members (48% Hispanic and 38% black) and attempted to contact 2,301 potentially eligible participants; eligibility criteria varied across studies. We successfully contacted 1,130 members, 51.9% were scheduled to participate and of those, 60.8% completed their study appointment. Non-Hispanic whites were less likely than Hispanics to be interested, but among those scheduling an appointment, participation did not differ by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: Community research registries are a feasible and efficient method for recruiting minority and underserved adults and may address disparities in access to and participation in health research.