When Budgets Are Tight, There Are Better Options Than Colonoscopies For Colorectal Cancer Screening

RTI International, Waltham, MA, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 09/2010; 29(9):1734-40. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2008.0898
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A critical challenge facing cancer screening programs, particularly those aimed at uninsured people with low incomes, is choosing the screening test that makes the most efficient use of limited budgets. For colorectal cancer screening, there is growing momentum to use colonoscopy, which is an expensive test. In this study, we modeled scenarios to assess whether the use of fecal occult blood tests or colonoscopy provides the most benefit under conditions of budget constraints. We found that although colonoscopy is more accurate, under most scenarios, fecal occult blood tests would result in more individuals' getting screened, with more life-years gained.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Few studies describe system-level challenges or facilitators to implementing population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outreach programs. Our qualitative study explored viewpoints of multilevel stakeholders before, during, and after implementation of a centralized outreach program. Program implementation was part of a broader quality-improvement initiative. Methods During 2008–2010, we conducted semi-structured, open-ended individual interviews and focus groups at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), a not-for-profit group model health maintenance organization using the practical robust implementation and sustainability model to explore external and internal barriers to CRC screening. We interviewed 55 stakeholders: 8 health plan leaders, 20 primary care providers, 4 program managers, and 23 endoscopy specialists (15 gastroenterologists, 8 general surgeons), and analyzed interview transcripts to identify common as well as divergent opinions expressed by stakeholders. Results The majority of stakeholders at various levels consistently reported that an automated telephone-reminder system to contact patients and coordinate mailing fecal tests alleviated organizational constraints on staff’s time and resources. Changing to a single-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) lessened patient and provider concerns about feasibility and accuracy of fecal testing. The centralized telephonic outreach program did, however, result in some screening duplication and overuse. Higher rates of FIT completion and a higher proportion of positive results with FIT required more colonoscopies. Conclusions Addressing barriers at multiple levels of a health system by changing the delivery system design to add a centralized outreach program, switching to a more accurate and easier-to-use fecal test, and providing educational and electronic support had both benefits and problematic consequences. Other health care organizations can use our results to understand the complexities of implementing centralized screening programs.
    Implementation Science 03/2015; 10. DOI:10.1186/s13012-015-0227-z · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSEWe evaluated the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Oncology Watch intervention, a clinical reminder implemented in Veterans Integrated Service Network 7 (including eight hospitals) to improve CRC screening rates in 2008. PATIENTS AND METHODS Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data were used to construct four cross-sectional groups of veterans at average risk, age 50 to 64 years; one group was created for each of the following years: 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. We applied hospital fixed effects for estimation, using a difference-in-differences model in which the eight hospitals served as the intervention sites, and the other 121 hospitals served as controls, with 2006 to 2007 as the preintervention period and 2009 to 2010 as the postintervention period.ResultsThe sample included 4,352,082 veteran-years in the 4 years. The adherence rates were 37.6%, 31.6%, 34.4%, and 33.2% in the intervention sites in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively, and the corresponding rates in the controls were 31.0%, 30.3%, 32.3%, and 30.9%. Regression analysis showed that among those eligible for screening, the intervention was associated with a 2.2-percentage point decrease in likelihood of adherence (P < .001). Additional analyses showed that the intervention was associated with a 5.6-percentage point decrease in likelihood of screening colonoscopy among the adherent, but with increased total colonoscopies (all indicators) of 3.6 per 100 veterans age 50 to 64 years. CONCLUSION The intervention had little impact on CRC screening rates for the studied population. This absence of favorable impact may have been caused by an unintentional shift of limited VA colonoscopy capacity from average-risk screening to higher-risk screening and to CRC surveillance, or by physician fatigue resulting from the large number of clinical reminders implemented in the VA.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2012; 30(32). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2011.39.7448 · 17.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rising colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the last decade are attributable almost entirely to increased colonoscopy use. Little is known about factors driving the increase, but primary care physicians (PCPs) play a central role in CRC screening delivery. Explore PCP attitudes toward screening colonoscopy and their associations with CRC screening practice patterns. Cross-sectional analysis of data from a nationally representative survey conducted in 2006-2007. 1,266 family physicians, general practitioners, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. Physician-reported changes in the volume of screening tests ordered, performed or supervised in the past 3 years, attitudes toward colonoscopy, the influence of evidence and perceived norms on their recommendations, challenges to screening, and practice characteristics. The cooperation rate (excludes physicians without valid contact information) was 75%; 28% reported their volume of FOBT ordering had increased substantially or somewhat, and the majority (53%) reported their sigmoidoscopy volume decreased either substantially or somewhat. A majority (73%) reported that colonoscopy volume increased somewhat or substantially. The majority (86%) strongly agreed that colonoscopy was the best of the available CRC screening tests; 69% thought it was readily available for their patients; 59% strongly or somewhat agreed that they might be sued if they did not offer colonoscopy to their patients. All three attitudes were significantly related to substantial increases in colonoscopy ordering. PCPs report greatly increased colonoscopy recommendation relative to other screening tests, and highly favorable attitudes about colonoscopy. Greater emphasis is needed on informed decision-making with patients about preferences for test options.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2012; 27(9):1150-8. DOI:10.1007/s11606-012-2051-3 · 3.42 Impact Factor