Article

Increased Screening Colonoscopy Rates and Reduced Racial Disparities in the New York Citywide Campaign: An Urban Model

Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 9.21). 11/2011; 106(11):1880-6. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.191
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2003, in response to low colonoscopy screening rates and significant sociodemographic disparities in colonoscopy screening in New York City (NYC), the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, together with the Citywide Colon Cancer Control Coalition, launched a multifaceted campaign to increase screening. We evaluated colonoscopy trends among adult New Yorkers aged 50 years and older between 2003 and 2007, the first five years of this campaign.
Data were analyzed from the NYC Community Health Survey, an annual, population-based surveillance of New Yorkers. Annual prevalence estimates of adults who reported a timely colonoscopy, one within the past 10 years, were calculated. Multivariate models were used to analyze changes over time in associations between colonoscopy screening and sociodemographic characteristics.
Overall, from 2003 to 2007 the proportion of New Yorkers aged 50 years and older who reported timely colonoscopy screening increased from 41.7% to 61.7%. Racial/ethnic and sex disparities observed in 2003 were eliminated by 2007: prevalence of timely colonoscopy was similar among non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, men, and women. However, Asians, the uninsured, and those with lower education and income continued to lag in receipt of timely colonoscopies.
The increased screening colonoscopy rate and reduction of racial/ethnic disparities observed in NYC suggest that multifaceted, coordinated urban campaigns can improve low utilization of clinical preventive health services and reduce public-health disparities.

0 Followers
 · 
129 Views
    • "Most previous studies on cancer disparities in NYC as well as other locations have focused on race/ethnicity (Mayberry et al., 1995; Cruz et al., 2007; Hirschman et al., 2007; Jandorf et al., 2008; Whitman et al., 2011). For studies that attempted to disentangle the effects of SES disparities as well as race/ethnicity, only single cancer sites have been investigated to date (McCarthy et al., 2010; Richards et al., 2011; Whitman et al., 2011). Different population studies have observed that living in SES-deprived neighborhoods was associated independently with lifestyle health risks, such as excess body weight (Janssen et al., 2006; Mobley et al., 2006), tobacco smoking (Hanibuchi et al., 2014), lower physical activity (Van Lenthe et al., 2005), increased stress (Cheng et al., 2014), and lower fruit and vegetable consumption (Giskes et al., 2006; Dubowitz et al., 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined the effects of race/ethnicity and neighborhood, a proxy of socioeconomic status, on cancer incidence in New York City neighborhoods: East Harlem (EH), Central Harlem (CH), and Upper East Side (UES). In this ecological study, Community Health Survey data (2002-2006) and New York State Cancer Registry incidence data (2007-2011) were stratified by sex, age, race/ethnicity, and neighborhood. Logistic regression models were fitted to each cancer incidence rate with race/ethnicity, neighborhood, and Community Health Survey-derived risk factors as predictor variables. Neighborhood was significantly associated with all cancers and 14 out of 25 major cancers. EH and CH residence conferred a higher risk of all cancers compared with UES (OR=1.34, 95% CI 1.07-1.68; and OR=1.39, 95% CI 1.12-1.72, respectively). The prevalence of diabetes and tobacco smoking were the largest contributors toward high cancer rates. Despite juxtaposition and similar proximity to medical centers, cancer incidence disparities persist among EH, CH, and UES neighborhoods. Targeted, neighborhood-specific outreach may aid in reducing cancer incidence rates.
    European journal of cancer prevention: the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) 07/2015; DOI:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000180 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE Health Plans are uniquely positioned to deliver outreach to members. We explored whether telephone outreach, delivered by Medicaid managed care organization (MMCO) staff, could increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among publicly insured urban women, potentially reducing disparities. METHODS We conducted an 18-month randomized clinical trial in 3 MMCOs in New York City in 2008-2010, randomizing 2,240 MMCO-insured women, aged 50 to 63 years, who received care at a participating practice and were overdue for CRC screening. MMCO outreach staff provided cancer screening telephone support, educating patients and helping overcome barriers. The primary outcome was the number of women screened for CRC during the 18-month intervention, assessed using claims. RESULTS MMCO staff reached 60% of women in the intervention arm by telephone. Although significantly more women in the intervention (36.7%) than in the usual care (30.6%) arm received CRC screening (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08-1.62), increases varied from 1.1% to 13.7% across the participating MMCOs, and the overall increase was driven by increases at 1 MMCO. In an as-treated comparison, 41.8% of women in the intervention arm who were reached by telephone received CRC screening compared with 26.8% of women in the usual care arm who were not contacted during the study (OR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.38, 2.44); 7 women needed to be reached by telephone for 1 to become screened. CONCLUSIONS The telephone outreach intervention delivered by MMCO staff increased CRC screening by 6% more than usual care among randomized women, and by 15.1% more than usual care among previously overdue women reached by the intervention. Our research-based intervention was successfully translated to the health plan arena, with variable effects in the participating MMCOs.
    The Annals of Family Medicine 07/2013; 11(4):335-343. DOI:10.1370/afm.1469 · 4.57 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences 12/2011; 57(2):263-5. DOI:10.1007/s10620-011-2010-6 · 2.55 Impact Factor
Show more