[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: 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.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 04/2015; 151(2). DOI:10.1007/s10549-015-3387-2 · 3.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The poor outcomes for cancers diagnosed at an advanced stage have been the driver behind research into techniques to detect disease before symptoms are manifest. For cervical and colorectal cancer, detection and treatment of "precancers" can prevent the development of cancer, a form of primary prevention. For other cancers-breast, prostate, lung, and ovarian-screening is a form of secondary prevention, aiming to improve outcomes through earlier diagnosis. International and national expert organizations regularly assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening technologies, issuing clinical guidelines for population-wide implementation. Psychological research has made important contributions to this process, assessing the psychological costs and benefits of possible screening outcomes (e.g., the impact of false positive results) and public tolerance of overdiagnosis. Cervical, colorectal, and breast screening are currently recommended, and prostate, lung, and ovarian screening are under active review. Once technologies and guidelines are in place, delivery of screening is implemented according to the health care system of the country, with invitation systems and provider recommendations playing a key role. Behavioral scientists can then investigate how individuals make screening decisions, assessing the impact of knowledge, perceived cancer risk, worry, and normative beliefs about screening, and this information can be used to develop strategies to promote screening uptake. This article describes current cancer screening options, discusses behavioral research designed to reduce underscreening and minimize inequalities, and considers the issues that are being raised by informed decision making and the development of risk-stratified approaches to screening. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
American Psychologist 02/2015; 70(2):119-133. DOI:10.1037/a0037357 · 6.87 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Research has shown that recent post-treatment breast cancer survivors face significant challenges around physical activity as they transition to recovery. This review examined randomized controlled trials targeting physical activity behavior change in breast cancer survivors <5 years post-treatment and described (1) characteristics of interventions for breast cancer survivors as well as (2) effect size estimates for these studies. A systematic search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines with Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus databases. Data were abstracted for primary intervention strategies and other details (e.g., setting, duration, theory use). A subgroup analysis was conducted to assess intensity of exercise supervision/monitoring and intervention effectiveness. The search produced 14 unique behavior intervention trials from the US and abroad published 2005-2013. The mean sample size was 153 participants per study. All interventions included moderate-intensity activities plus various behavioral change strategies. Most interventions were partially or entirely home based. The overall standardized mean difference was 0.47 (0.23, 0.67) with p < 0.001. Most interventions were effective in producing short-term behavior changes in physical activity, but varied greatly relative to intervention strategies and intensity of supervision/monitoring. Highly structured interventions tended to produce larger behavior change effects overall, but many larger effect sizes came from interventions supported by phone counseling or e-mail. We observed that 'more' may not be better in terms of direct supervision/monitoring in physical activity behavior interventions. This may be important in exploring less resource-intensive options for effective behavior change strategies for recent post-treatment survivors.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 01/2015; 149(2). DOI:10.1007/s10549-014-3255-5 · 3.94 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second and third leading cause of cancer death for Hispanic men and women, respectively. CRC can be prevented if precursors are detected early and removed and can be successfully treated if discovered early. While one-on-one interventions for increasing CRC screening (CRCS) are recommended, few studies specifically assess the effectiveness of lay health worker (LHW) approaches using different educational materials. Purpose To develop and evaluate the effectiveness of two LHW-delivered CRCS interventions known as Vale la Pena (VLP; “It’s Worth It!”) on increasing CRCS among Hispanics. Design The study design was a cluster randomized controlled trial with two treatment arms. Setting/participants Six hundred and sixty five Hispanics 50 years and older were recruited from 24 colonias (neighborhoods) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of the Texas–Mexico border. Intervention The interventions were a small media print intervention (SMPI) (including DVD and flipchart), and a tailored interactive multimedia intervention (TIMI) delivered on tablet computers. A no intervention group served as the comparison group. Data were collected between 2007 and 2009 and analyzed between 2009 and 2013. Main outcome measures Measures assessed CRCS behavior, self-efficacy, knowledge, and other psychosocial constructs related to CRCS and targeted through VLP. Results Among participants reached for follow-up, 18.9 % in the SMPI group, 13.3 % in the TIMI group, and 11.9 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. Intent-to-treat analysis showed that 13.6 % in the SMPI group, 10.2 % in the TIMI group, and 10.8 % in the comparison group completed CRCS. These differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion Results indicated that there are no significant differences in CRCS uptake between groups.
Cancer Causes and Control 12/2014; 26(1). DOI:10.1007/s10552-014-0472-5 · 2.74 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Twenty-nine states and tribal organizations receive funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by (1) promoting CRC screening population-wide using evidence-based approaches (EBAs) and (2) providing CRC screening to the un/underinsured. This analysis examines the implementation of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) and includes a comparison group of unfunded organizations.
Methods: An online survey was conducted in fall 2012 that asked the 29 CRCCP grantees about CRC screening activities in the 3rd year of the program (7/2011-6/2012). The comparison group included 24 Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program grantees that did not receive CRCCP funding; they were asked about CRC prevention and control activities funded by other sources.
Results: CRCCP grantees were more likely than unfunded sites to use the following EBAs to promote CRC screening: small media - 97% of grantees versus 50% of unfunded sites; client reminders - 76% versus 21%; reducing structural barriers - 59% versus 25%; provider reminders - 38% versus 17%; provider assessment and feedback - 45% versus 12%. All grantees provided CRC screening but only 50% of the unfunded sites. The two groups also differed with respect to their partnerships for screening provision, use of patient navigators, recruitment of patients, professional development and other activities.
Conclusions: CRCCP grantees implemented EBAs promoting CRC screening at a higher rate than unfunded sites. Both groups were equally likely to implement other CRC promotion approaches, suggesting that CRCCP funding and support was key to increasing EBA use.
142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition 2014; 11/2014
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: Follow-up after a positive colorectal cancer screening test is necessary for screening to be effective. We hypothesized that nurse navigation would increase the completion of colonoscopy after a positive screening test. Methods: This study was conducted between 2008 and 2012 at 21 primary care medical centers in western Washington State. Participants in the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening study who had a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy needing follow-up were randomized to usual care (UC) or a nurse navigator (navigation). UC included an electronic health record-based positive FOBT registry and physician reminder system. Navigation included UC plus care coordination and patient self-management support from a registered nurse who tracked and assisted patients until they completed or refused colonoscopy. The primary outcome was completion of colonoscopy within 6 months. After 6 months, both groups received navigation. Results: We randomized 147 participants with a positive FOBT or sigmoidoscopy. Completion of colonoscopy was higher in the intervention group at 6 months, but differences were not statistically significant (91.0% in navigation group vs 80.8% in UC group; adjusted difference, 10.1%; P = .10). Reasons for no or late colonoscopies included refusal, failure to schedule or missed appointments, concerns about risks or costs, and competing health concerns. Conclusions: Navigation did not lead to a statistically significant incremental benefit at 6 months. Impact: Follow-up rates after a positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test are high in a health care system where UC included a registry and physician reminders. Because of high follow-up rates in a health care system where UC included a registry and physician reminders, and small sample size, we cannot rule out incremental benefits of nurse navigation.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 11/2014; 27(6):789-795. DOI:10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140125 · 1.98 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Treatment fidelity is associated with improvement in research outcomes and increased confidence in significant findings. However, few studies report on recommended areas of treatment fidelity (i.e., study design, training, treatment delivery, treatment receipt, and treatment enactment), leaving a dearth of information about implementation components that contributed to a study’s success. Without such information, it is difficult for researchers to correctly assess previous findings and for practitioners to correctly implement findings into practice. Thus, it is crucial that studies assess both treatment fidelity and applicability of treatment fidelity findings. We report measures of treatment fidelity in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention promoting colonoscopy in at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We describe assessments related to both treatment delivery and treatment receipt. We conducted separate ANCOVAs to model the change in each of the treatment receipt variables, comparing the two intervention arms. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had significantly greater improvements in CRC knowledge (f = 17.46, p < .0001), perceptions about susceptibility (f = 15.08, p = .0002), response efficacy (f = 7.46, p = .0076), self-efficacy (f = 8.16, p = .0053), and reduced decisional uncertainty (f = 19.59, p < .0001) from baseline to 1-month follow-up. Overall, our study adhered to most of the best-practice guidelines for behavioral intervention fidelity. This demonstrates that our intervention was delivered as intended and positively affected the cognitive processes that are purported to be predictive of adherent behavioral outcomes.
SAGE Open 10/2014; October-December(4):1-13. DOI:10.1177/2158244014559021
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introduction
Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).
We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.
CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).
Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program’s potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Context: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers affecting both men and women in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supports both direct clinical screening services (screening provision) and activities to promote screening at the population level (screening promotion). Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize patient navigation (PN) programs for screening provision and promotion for the first 1 to 2 years of program funding. Participants: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the 29 CRCCP grantees (25 states and 4 tribal organizations) and 14 in-depth interviews to assess program implementation. Main Outcome Measures: The survey and interview guide collected information on CRC screening provision and promotion activities and PN, including the structure of the PN program, characteristics of the navigators, funding mechanism, and navigators' activities. Results: Twenty-four of 28 CRCCP grantees of the survey used PN for screening provision whereas 18 grantees used navigation for screening promotion. Navigators were often trained in nursing or public health. Navigation activities were similar for both screening provision and promotion, and common tasks included assessing and responding to patient barriers to screening, providing patient education, and scheduling appointments. For screening provision, activities centered on making reminder calls, educating patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopies, and tracking patients for completion of the tests. Navigation may influence screening quality by improving patients' bowel preparation for colonoscopies. Conclusions: Our study provides insights into PN across a federally funded CRC program. Results suggest that PN activities may be instrumental in recruiting people into cancer screening and ensuring completed screening and follow-up.
Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP 08/2014; Publish Ahead of Print(5). DOI:10.1097/PHH.0000000000000132 · 1.47 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Latinos have lower colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) and survival rates compared to other race/ethnic groups. This cross-sectional study examines relationships between acculturation, access to and utilization of healthcare services, and CRCS in low-income Latinos. Bilingual data collectors conducted structured interviews with 544 Latino men and women (>50 years) residing in the Texas-Mexico border area. Using a hierarchical logistic regression model, we examined the relationship between lifetime history of any CRCS test and indicators of acculturation, healthcare utilization and access to care, adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics. Survey results revealed a 34 % prevalence of CRCS. Participants reporting a provider recommendation for screening, regular check-ups, higher acculturation level, and health insurance had significantly increased odds of CRCS. Findings indicate CRCS intervention research in Latinos should focus on (1) increasing physicians' recommendations for screening, (2) promoting regular check-ups, (3) and increasing CRC prevention efforts on less acculturated and uninsured groups.
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 07/2014; 17(3). DOI:10.1007/s10903-014-0061-4 · 1.16 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective:
Few studies use longitudinal data to identify predictors of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). We examined predictors of (1) initial CRCS during the first year of a randomized trial, and (2) repeat CRCS during the second year of the trial among those that completed FOBT in Year 1.
The sample comprised 1247 participants of the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (SOS) Trial (Group Health Cooperative, August 2008 to November 2011). Potential predictors of CRCS were identified with logistic regression and included sociodemographics, health history, and validated scales of psychosocial constructs.
Prior CRCS (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.99-3.52) and intervention group (Automated: OR 2.06 95% CI 1.43-2.95; Assisted: OR 4.03, 95% CI 2.69-6.03; Navigated: OR 5.64, 95% CI 3.74-8.49) were predictors of CRCS completion at Year 1. For repeat CRCS at Year 2, prior CRCS at baseline (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.25-3.11), intervention group (Automated: OR 9.27, 95% CI 4.56-18.82; Assisted: OR 11.17, 95% CI 5.44-22.94; Navigated: OR 13.10, 95% CI 6.33-27.08), and self-efficacy (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00-1.73) were significant predictors.
Self-efficacy and prior CRCS are important predictors of future screening behavior. CRCS completion increased when access barriers were removed through interventions.
Preventive Medicine 06/2014; 66. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.06.013 · 3.09 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Understanding how interventions affect time to completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening might assist in planning and delivering population-based screening interventions. The Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) study was conducted between 2008 and 2011 at 21 primary care medical centers in Western Washington. Participants in the study, aged 50-73 years, were eligible if they were enrolled in Group Health and were due for CRC screening. 4,675 recruited participants were randomized to usual care (UC) or one of three interventions with incremental levels of systems of support for completion of CRC screening. We conducted time to screening analyses of the SOS data in year 1 and year 2. We investigated whether these effects were time-varying. For year 1, the intervention effects on the time to completion of CRC screening were the strongest during the first two post-randomization months then decreased, with no significant effect after the 5th month. For year 2, the intervention effects on the time to CRC screening increased from the 1st to the 3rd month and then decreased, with no significant effect after the 5th month. Hence, each of the interventions to increase CRC screening had its greatest effect within the first 3 months after being offered to participants. Future studies should test whether booster interventions offered later could increase screening rate among those who remain unscreened. Additional research is needed to develop intervention strategies for CRC screening that focus on sustained behavior over time.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background. Little is known about how colorectal cancer screening test preferences operate together with test access and navigation to influence screening adherence in primary care. Methods. We analyzed data from a randomized trial of 945 primary care patients to assess the independent effects of screening test preference for fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy (CX), mailed access to FIT and CX, and telephone navigation for FIT and CX, on screening. Results. Preference was not associated with overall screening, but individuals who preferred FIT were more likely to complete FIT screening (p = 0.005), while those who preferred CX were more likely to perform CX screening (p = 0.032). Mailed access to FIT and CX was associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.6, p = 0.001), due to a 29-fold increase in FIT use. Telephone navigation was also associated with increased overall screening (OR = 2.1, p = 0.005), mainly due to a 3-fold increase in CX performance. We estimated that providing access and navigation for both screening tests may substantially increase screening compared to a preference-tailored approach, mainly due to increased performance of non-preferred tests. Conclusions. Preference influences the type of screening tests completed. Test access increases FIT and navigation mainly increases CX. Screening strategies providing access and navigation to both tests may be more effective than preference-tailored approaches. Impact. Preference tailoring in colorectal cancer screening strategies should be avoided if the objective is to maximize screening rates, although other factors (e.g., costs, necessary follow-up) should also be considered.