Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) related to test preference has been advocated as a potentially effective strategy for increasing adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, yet primary care providers (PCPs) are often reluctant to comply with patient preferences if they differ from their own. Risk stratification advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) provides a rational strategy for reconciling these differences. OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of risk stratification in PCP decision making related to test preference for average-risk patients and receptivity to use of an electronic risk assessment tool for ACN to facilitate SDM. DESIGN: Mixed methods, including qualitative key informant interviews and a cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs at an urban, academic safety-net institution. MAIN MEASURES: Screening preferences, factors influencing patient recommendations and receptivity to use of a risk stratification tool. KEY RESULTS: Nine PCPs participated in interviews and 57 completed the survey. Despite an overwhelming preference for colonoscopy by 95% of respondents, patient risk (67%) and patient preferences (63%) were more influential in their decision making than patient comorbidities (31%; P < 0.001). Age was the single most influential risk factor (excluding family history), with <20% of respondents choosing factors other than age. Most respondents reported that they would be likely to use a risk stratification tool in their practice either 'often' (43%) or sometimes (53%). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification was perceived to be important in clinical decision making, yet few providers considered risk factors other than age for average-risk patients. Providers were receptive to the use of a risk assessment tool for ACN when recommending an appropriate screening test for select patients.

Assessing the impact of patient navigation: prevention and early detection metrics.

BACKGROUND: The lack of comparable metrics to evaluate prevention and early detection patient navigation programs impeded the ability to identify best practices. METHODS: The Prevention and Early Detection Workgroup of the Patient Navigation Leadership Summit was charged with making recommendations for common clinical metrics specific to the prevention and early detection phase of the cancer care continuum. The workgroup began with a review of existing literature to characterize variability in published navigation metrics; then developed a list of priority recommendations that would be applicable to the range of navigation settings (clinical, academic, or community-based). RESULTS: Recommendations for researchers and program evaluators included the following: 1) Clearly document key program characteristics; 2) Use a set of core data elements to form the basis of your reported metrics; and 3) Prioritize data collection using methods with the least amount of bias. CONCLUSIONS: If navigation programs explicitly state the context of their evaluation and choose from among the common set of data elements, meaningful comparisons among existing programs should be feasible.

Challenges in the delivery of quality breast cancer care: initiation of adjuvant hormone therapy at an urban safety net hospital.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer treatment disparities in racial/ethnic minority and low-income populations are well documented; however, underlying reasons remain poorly understood. This study sought to identify barriers to the delivery of quality breast cancer treatment, addressing compliance with the National Quality Forum (NQF) quality metric for adjuvant hormone therapy (HT; administration of HT within 365 days of diagnosis in eligible patients) at an urban safety net hospital. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included women diagnosed with nonmetastatic, T1c or greater, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer from 2006 to 2008. Data sources included the hospital cancer registry and electronic medical record. Compliance with the NQF quality metric was defined as HT prescription within 365 days of diagnosis. Bivariate analysis compared compliant with noncompliant patients. Qualitative analysis assessed reasons for delayed compliance (HT at > 365 days) and never compliance (no HT at 4 years). RESULTS: Of 113 eligible patients, the majority were racial/ethnic minority (56%), stage II (54%), unmarried (60%), and had public or no insurance (72%). Sixty-four percent were compliant, and 36% were noncompliant. Of the noncompliant, 78% had delayed compliance, and 22% were never compliant. Noncompliant patients were significantly more likely to be Black, Hispanic, foreign-born, and stage III at diagnosis. Ten reasons for delayed compliance were identified, including patient- and system-level barriers. Most patients (56%) had more than one reason contributing to delay. CONCLUSION: Urgently needed interventions to reduce disparities in breast cancer treatment should take into account obstacles inherent among immigrant and indigent populations and complexities of multidisciplinary cancer care.

What do public housing residents say about their health?

BACKGROUND: Residents of public housing have poorer health indicators than comparably resourced individuals from the larger community. OBJECTIVES: To identify major health concerns, issues, and barriers to health of community members living in public housing developments, especially as related to cardiovascular disease prevention. To identify similarities and differences between data collected using two methods to inform future health promotion programs and policies. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted with resident leaders and analyzed qualitatively in eight housing developments. Results were compared with quantitative data collected from a resident health survey with a large sample that analyzed individual and development-level characteristics, major health concerns, and barriers. RESULTS: Several development-level characteristics were significantly associated with residents' health concerns and barriers, including development size, percentage of Spanish speakers, and presence of a tenant task force (TTF); important health promotion barriers included lack of resident engagement, inconsistency in programming, lack of knowledge of actions to prevent chronic disease, and lack of resources for health promotion. Safety-related health concerns were named as a priority. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple data collection methods can yield important data about community health priorities and barriers; areas of difference and similarity between methods are especially useful in guiding health promotion efforts and opportunities.

Feasibility of chronic disease patient navigation in an urban primary care practice.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating chronic disease navigation using lay health care workers trained in motivational interviewing (MI) into an existing mammography navigation program. Primary-care patient navigators implemented MI-based telephone conversations around mammography, smoking, depression, and obesity. We conducted a small-scale demonstration, using mixed methods to assess patient outcomes and provider satisfaction. One hundred nine patients participated. Ninety-four percent scheduled and 73% completed a mammography appointment. Seventy-one percent agreed to schedule a primary care appointment and 54% completed that appointment. Patients and providers responded positively. Incorporating telephone-based chronic disease navigation supported by MI into existing disease-specific navigation is efficacious and acceptable to those enrolled.

Connecting Boston's public housing developments to community health centers: who's ready for change?

BACKGROUND: Despite close proximity to community health centers, public housing residents are at increased risk of uncontrolled chronic disease, in part because of underutilization of routine health care. OBJECTIVES: To assist in program planning, the Partners in Health and Housing Prevention Research Center (PHH-PRC) used the Community Readiness Model to compare readiness of public housing developments and community health centers to address community-identified health priorities. The model assumes that program success to affect change depends on matching the community's level of readiness to address the issue. METHODS: Key respondent interviews were conducted across 15 communities: Eight housing developments and seven health centers. Interviews were scored across six dimensions on an anchored, 9-point scale and averaged to provide a composite readiness score. Higher scores indicate increasing levels of readiness. Interview transcripts were reviewed for consistent themes. RESULTS: Health centers scored significantly higher (mean, 5.88) than housing developments (mean, 3.33), corresponding with the Preparation stage of readiness compared with the Vague Awareness stage, respectively. Both scored highest in Existing Programs and Resources and lowest in Knowledge of Efforts. Qualitative analysis revealed a lack of existing partnerships between housing developments and health centers as well as significant social barriers preventing housing residents from engaging in care. CONCLUSION: We found a mismatch in readiness to address community health priorities. Although health centers have programs to address health issues, community awareness of programs is limited and barriers to engaging in care persist. The model provided a useful tool for engaging communities into shared program planning.