Differences In Screening Rates Research Articles

Hospitals' collection and use of data to address social needs and social determinants of health.

To assess differences in hospitals' collection and use of data on patients' health-related social needs (HRSN) by availability of programs or strategies in place to address patients' HRSN and social determinants of health (SDOH) of communities. The 2021 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and 2022 Information Technology (IT) Supplement. This cross-sectional study described hospitals' engagement in screening and the availability of programs or strategies to address nine different HRSN. We assessed differences in screening rates and uses of data collected through screening among hospitals with and without programs or strategies in place to address HRSN or SDOH using Chi-squared tests of independence. Analyses were restricted to IT Supplement respondents with complete data for social needs questions asked in the Annual Survey (N = 1997). In 2022, hospitals used social needs data collected through screening for various purposes including discharge planning and clinical decision-making at their hospital as well as to refer patients to needed resources and assess community-level needs. Hospitals with a program or strategy in place had higher rates of screening across all domains and higher rates of using of data collected through screening for uses involving exchange or coordination with external entities. Collection of social needs data may help inform the development of programs or strategies to address HRSN and SDOH, which in turn can enable providers to screen for these needs and use the data in the near term for care delivery and in the long term to address community and population needs.

Inequality by Skin Color in Breast Cancer Screening in Brazil: a Differences-in-Differences Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer type and the first in mortality among Brazilian women. Mammograms are one of the main early diagnosis strategies. National breast cancer screening coverage is still low. Brazil's low screening coverage is due to high mammography access inequality. Skin color defines healthcare access differences. Our article explores the natural event of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyze differences in screening rates between two racial groups of women through the application of the differences in differences (DiD) estimator. The results indicate that BBI women (Black, Brown, and Indigenous Brazilian) have lower screening rates than WY women (White and Yellow) and that the pandemic reduced the difference between these two groups due to the lower number of mammograms performed by WY women. It is believed that the information channel can explain much of this result. The BA population, wealthier and more educated, may have had additional information about COVID-19 and its consequences, as well as an increased likelihood of working remotely and practicing social distance. Structural racism causes many social indicators to be correlated with inequality of access to mammography and negatively impacts health conditions for BBI women. Public policies are necessary for equal access to breast cancer screening for the most vulnerable women.

Abstract C111: Do electronic health records assist providers to provide equitable referral for breast and cervical cancer screening between black and white women?

Abstract Background: Breast and Cervical Cancer screening (BCS and CCS) are essential tools to prevent cancer. Yet, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) women die at a much higher rate from Breast and Cervical cancer than non-Hispanic White (NHW) women. Thus, it is important that providers recommend BCS (Mammogram) and CCS (Pap test), equitably, for maximum cancer prevention. Meaningful Use (MU), as part of the HITECH Act, incentivized providers to utilize electronic health records (EHR) not only for billing, but to increase the quality of patient care. MU also included an aim to reduce health disparities using EHR. The intent of this study was to evaluate BCS and CCS rates before and after the advent of MU to examine potential cancer screening disparities between NHW and NHB. It is imperative that cancer screenings are recommended, equally, to address grave disparities for NHB cancer mortality. Methods: Using a pre-post design, we examined BCS and CCS rates before the enactment of MU (2013) in a Medicaid population and after MU implementation for years 2014-2016. Medicaid data were extracted from the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services data warehouse for Medicaid enrollees. Inclusion criteria were physicians who were continually enrolled in MU from 2014-2016 who saw women of BCS and CCS screening age. Odds Ratios were used to examine differences in screening rates over time between Black and White women. Results: For BCS, no differences were detected between NHW and NHB women, although a trend was observed for post-MU for 2015 (OR = 1.167, 95% CI [0.876, 1.580]). Analyses of CCS rates post-MU showed differences (p<0.01) between NHW and NHB for 2014 (OR = 1.211, 95% CI [1.079, 1.377] and 2015 (OR = 1.141, 95% CI [1.029, 1.266], respectively. Regression analyses from 2013 to 2016 showed differences between NHW and NHB women for both BCS and CCS over time with NHW and NHB screening rates converging in 2016 (p<0.05). Conclusion: We did not find any discernable differences in BCS between NHW and NHB women after providers subscribed to MU. CCS screening rates for NHB were higher than NHW in 2014-2015, but not in 2016. However, changes in BCS and CCS rates were significant by year and over time. For both BCS and CCS, rates converged over time for both NHW and NHB reducing screening disparities, but screening rates decreased over time. This decrease over time was attributable to changes in screening recommendations for both BCS and CCS (ACOG, ACS, CDC). Notably, the guidelines changed from yearly CCS to every three years for women at low-risk for cervical cancer. Further analyses are warranted to adjust for the change in screening guidelines. These findings are complex and will be fully discussed to discern screening differences between NHW and NHB women, and use of EHR as a tool to reduce health disparities. Citation Format: Sabrina Ford, Laura Houdeshell-Putt, Molly Polverento, Kevin Brooks. Do electronic health records assist providers to provide equitable referral for breast and cervical cancer screening between black and white women? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr C111.

"Wanting the Best for Our Folks"-A Mixed Methods Analysis of Community Health Center Social Risk Screening Initiatives.

Many community health centers (CHC) are scaling social risk screening in response to growing awareness of the influence of social adversity on health outcomes and concurrent incentives for social risk data collection. We studied the implementation of social risk screening in Texas CHCs to inform best practices and understand equity implications. Convergent mixed methods of 3 data sources. Using interviews and surveys with CHC providers and staff, we explored social risk screening practices to identify barriers and facilitators; we used electronic health record (EHR) data to assess screening reach and disparities in screening. Across 4 urban/suburban Texas CHCs, we conducted 27 interviews (15 providers/12 staff) and collected 97 provider surveys; 2 CHCs provided EHR data on 18,672 patients screened during the study period. Data revealed 2 cross-cutting themes: 1) there was broad support for social risk screening/care integration that was rooted in CHCs' mission and positionalities, and 2) barriers to social risk screening efforts were largely a result of limited time and staffing. Though EHR data showed screens per month and screens/encounters increased peri-pandemic (4.1% of encounters in 8/2019 to 46.1% in 2/2021), there were significant differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity and preferred language (P < .001). In surveys, 90.0% of surveyed providers reported incorporating social risk screening into patient conversations; 28.6% were unaware their clinic had an embedded screening tool. Study CHCs were in the early stages of standardizing social risk screening. Differences in screening reach by patient demographics raise concerns that social screening initiatives, which often serve as a path to resource/service connection, might exacerbate disparities. Overcoming barriers to reach, sustainability, and equity requires supports targeted to program design/development, workforce capacity, and quality improvement.

Assessing Implementation of Social Screening Within US Health Care Settings: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Though a growing crop of health care reforms aims to encourage health care-based social screening, no literature has synthesized existing social screening implementation research to inform screening practice and policymaking. Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed literature on social screening implementation published 1/1/2011-2/17/2022. We applied a 2-concept search (health care-based screening; social risk factors) to PubMed and Embase. Studies had to explore the implementation of health care-based multi-domain social screening and describe 1+ outcome related to the reach, adoption, implementation, and/or maintenance of screening. Two reviewers extracted data related to key study elements, including sample, setting, and implementation outcomes. Forty-two articles met inclusion criteria. Reach (n = 7): We found differences in screening rates by patient race/ethnicity; findings varied across studies. Patients who preferred Spanish had lower screening rates than English-preferring patients. Adoption (n = 13): Workforce education and dedicated quality improvement projects increased screening adoption. Implementation (n = 32): Time was the most cited barrier to screening; administration time differed by tool/workforce/modality. Use of standardized screening tools/workflows improved screening integration. Use of community health workers and/or technology improved risk disclosure and facilitated screening in resource-limited settings. Maintenance (n = 1): Only 1 study reported on maintenance; results showed a drop in screening over 21 months. Critical evidence gaps in social screening implementation persist. These include gaps in knowledge about effective strategies for integrating social screening into clinical workflows and ways to maximize screening equity. Future research should leverage the rapidly increasing number of screening initiatives to elevate and scale best practices.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cervical precancer screening among women in Ethiopia, Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe: analysis of Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment surveys

ObjectivesWe examined age, residence, education and wealth inequalities and their combinations on cervical precancer screening probabilities for women. We hypothesised that inequalities in screening favoured women who were older, lived...

Comparison of Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Use between Commercial, Medicare, and Medicare Advantage Enrollees

ObjectiveLung cancer screening does not require patient cost-sharing for insured people in the U.S. Little is known about whether other factors associated with patient selection into different insurance plans affect screening rates. We examined screening rates for enrollees in commercial, Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS), and Medicare Advantage plans. MethodSCounty-level smoking rates from the 2017 County Health Rankings were used to estimate the number of enrollees eligible for lung cancer screening in two large retrospective claims databases covering: a 5% national sample of Medicare FFS enrollees; and 100% sample of enrollees associated with large commercial and Medicare Advantage carriers. Screening rates were estimated using observed claims, stratified by payer, before aggregation into national estimates by payer and demographics. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in screening rates between payers. ResultsThere were 1,077,142 enrollees estimated to be eligible for screening. The overall estimated screening rate for enrollees by payer was 1.75% for commercial plans, 3.37% for Medicare FFS, and 4.56% for Medicare Advantage plans. Screening rates were estimated to be lowest among females (1.55%-4.02%), those aged 75-77 years (0.63%-2.87%), those residing in rural areas (1.88%-3.56%), and those in the West (1.16%-3.65%). Among Medicare FFS enrollees, screening rates by race/ethnicity were non-Hispanic White (3.71%), non-Hispanic Black (2.17%) and Other (1.68%). ConclusionsConsiderable variation exists in lung cancer screening between different payers and across patient characteristics. Efforts targeting historically vulnerable populations could present opportunities to increase screening.

Assessing Differences in Social Determinants of Health Screening Rates in a Large, Urban Safety-Net Health System.

Previous studies have evaluated the implementation of standardized social determinants of health (SDOH) screening within healthcare settings, however, less is known about where screening gaps may exist following initial implementation based on facility characteristics. The objective of this study is to assess differences in screening rates for SDOH at a large, urban healthcare system. We used electronic health record data obtained from NYC Health + Hospitals primary care sites from 2019 to 2022. We calculated the mean number of visits that were SDOH screened by visit type, facility size, and the percentages of community characteristics. We conducted 4 logistic regression models predicting the odds of screening for any SDOH and for specific SDOH needs (housing, food, and medical cost assistance) based on facility type, facility size, and the socioeconomic characteristics of the surrounding community. Among the 3 212 650 visits included, 16.90% were SDOH screened. Across all 4 multivariate logistic regression models predicting SDOH screening, a visit had significantly lower odds of being screened if based at a midsize or small facility, if it was a telemedicine visit, or based at a facility located in a zip-code with a higher percentage of SDOH needs. Our study found important differences in SDOH screening rates at a large, NYC-based health system based on size, visit type, and community level characteristics. In particular, our findings point to barriers related to facility size and telemedicine workflow that should be addressed to increase uptake of SDOH screening within different visits and facility types.

Breast Cancer and Women Veterans: What Is the Impact of Mental Health on Screening Rates?

Background: The proportion of women Veterans are increasing and, as such, access to high-quality breast cancer care is important. Prior studies have shown that rural location, age, and a mental health diagnosis negatively impact breast cancer screening rates. Methods: We aimed to retrospectively assess the impact of these risk factors on breast cancer screening adherence rates among Veterans at our institution. Women who were eligible for breast cancer screening per the United States Preventative Services Taskforce guidelines were included. Results: Of 2321 women, overall adherence was 78.2%. There were no significant differences in screening rates between races, various age groups, geographical distribution, and having anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, Veterans with a diagnosis of depression were more likely to adhere to screening guidelines. Having multiple mental health diagnoses was also not a negative risk factor. Conclusions: Our Veteran population's adherence rates are higher than the national average and rural location, race, age, and certain mental health disorders did not negatively affect adherence to screening mammography. Though more research is needed, screening reminders from our women's health coordinator may have improved adherence rates and lowered disparities.

The Impact of Limited Language Proficiency in Screening for Breast Cancer

BackgroundThe prevalence of a culturally diverse population in the United States continues to grow. Nevertheless, the national impact of limited English proficiency (LEP) in breast cancer screening is still unknown. MethodsA retrospective review of the 2015 sample of the National Health Interview Survey database was performed. The cohort included women with and without LEP between 40 and 75 years. We evaluated differences in screening rates, baseline, socioeconomic, access to healthcare, and breast cancer risk factors with univariate and multivariate regression analyses. ResultsThe prevalence of LEP was 5.7% (N = 1825, weighted counts 3936,081). LEP women showed a statistically significant lower rate of overall screening mammograms (78% vs. 90%), fewer benign lumps removed (6.4% vs. 17%) and lower rates of access to healthcare variables. They showed a higher rate of nonprivate insurance and living below the poverty line, a lower rate of hormone replacement therapy (1.8% vs. 5.6%), older menarche (12.97 vs. 12.75) and a higher rate of current menstruation (36% vs. 24). LEP women were associated with a lower probability of having a screening mammogram in multivariate analysis (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.51-0.87). When LEP was subdivided into Spanish and “other” languages, Spanish speakers were associated with a lower probability of a screening mammogram (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.90) while controlling for the same covariates. ConclusionThe results from our study showed that LEP women are associated with a lower probability of having a screening mammogram. Particularly, the Spanish speakers were found as a vulnerable subgroup.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in an academic family practice: Short-term impact of guideline changes.

To investigate abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening rates in the 6 months before and after the introduction of updated Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) guidelines to determine effects on practice patterns, as well as to determine whether certain patient characteristics impact AAA screening rates. Retrospective chart review. Academic family health centre in London, Ont. Male patients between the ages of 65 and 80. Screening rates for AAA before and after the guideline update were compared using the normal approximation of the binomial distribution. Analysis of demographic characteristic effects on screening rates was completed with the Fisher exact test. Number of visits to the clinic with a primary care provider within the study period and imaging type were collected. Of the 266 patients included in the study, 160 patients were eligible for screening at the start of the study period, 6 months before publication of the CTFPHC AAA guideline. Individuals eligible for screening visited the clinic an average (SD) of 2.44 (1.82) times in the 6 months before and 2.66 (1.99) times in the 6 months after. Overall, 69 individuals had AAA screening completed and 9 had a discussion of AAA screening without any imaging, for a total uptake rate of 88.5% for those who had screening recommended. The overall imaging rate was 48.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in screening rates between the time periods (P=.337) among those eligible for screening. For demographic characteristics for risk stratification, 7 individuals had a documented family history, of whom 5 had imaging of their abdominal aorta performed, plus 1 additional individual who had screening recommended but not completed. This was not statistically significant relative to the total population (P=.0598). Positive smoking status (active or ex-smoker) was more common, with 135 individuals having a relevant smoking history. Approximately half of these current and former smokers (68 individuals [50.4%]) had any sort of abdominal aortic imaging performed or recommended, which was not statistically significantly different compared with non-smokers (62 of 126 imaging performed or recommended, 49.2%; P=.9016). Screening practices did not change appreciably with the introduction of the CTFPHC AAA screening guidelines. Further research is needed to improve AAA screening rates. It is worth exploring electronic medical record-based reminders, nursing staff involvement in screening, screening programs via public health, and point-of-care ultrasound screening in a primary care setting.

Association of time intervals in cancer screenings and older participants' characteristics, in a nationally representative sample

IntroductionHealth agencies and guidelines have proposed various recommendations regarding breast and prostate cancer screening intervals for older adults. However, there is limited data about factors that could impact older individuals' adherence to these guideline-based intervals. This study emphasized the differences in screening rates between men and women undergoing screening for breast (mammogram) and prostate (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] test) cancer. It also investigated the socio-demographic and emotional factors associated with screening time intervals. Materials and MethodsThis cross-sectional design study used data from the National Social Life Health and Aging Project Wave 3 (NSHAP-W3, 2015). The outcome measures were screening time intervals (PSA test or mammogram). Individuals were asked, “About how long has it been since you last had a screening?” Response categories ranged from 1 = within the past year to 5 = never. Differences in screening time intervals were evaluated and displayed by age group (PSA vs. mammogram). The association between the outcome measures and participants' characteristics was evaluated via ordinal logistic regression. ResultsThere were 2320 participants included: 52% women and 48% men. They had a mean age of 66.9 years old, were mostly White (74%) and college graduates (68%). The average time interval between screenings was greater for PSA testing than mammography (mean [M] = 2.28 vs. M = 1.89, p < 0.001). The middle age groups (PSA: 60–79 and mammogram: 65–74), had significantly more frequent screenings compared to the youngest group (50–54). In contrast, older (80+) individuals did not display shorter screening time intervals compared to the youngest group. Furthermore, shorter time intervals between screenings were associated with higher household income (mammogram: odds ratio [OR] = 0.804; PSA: OR = 0.785, p < 0.05), African American descent (mammogram: OR = 0.458, p < 0.001), and higher frequency of physical activity (PSA: OR = 0.921, p = 0.030). Lastly, women who responded “yes” to skipping care due to lack of insurance reported longer periods between mammograms (OR = 1.784, p = 0.002). DiscussionFindings from this real-world US population representative database highlight the role of age, income, and insurance in the timing between screenings; participants aged between 60 and 79 years old, African American women, and physically active men are more likely to pursue earlier screening. These results emphasize the importance of socioeconomic and lifestyle factors when seeking to impact screening timing.

Phenotypic prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndrome among an underdiagnosed and underscreened population of over 50 million children and adults.

Background: Metabolic syndrome is a phenotypic condition associated with a variety of genotypes. Studies of rare genotypes can be made more difficult by clinical underscreening of the population for the phenotypic traits that define metabolic syndrome to clinicians. Studies have demonstrated underdiagnosis of pediatric obesity, as well as reduced rates of pediatric screening for obesity related conditions, including conditions leading to a diagnosis of metabolic syndrome. If true, there may be a significant underdiagnosis of metabolic syndrome among the pediatric population compared to the adult population. Methods: Using Epic’s Cosmos Data Network aggregated, de-identified patient data collected from healthcare organizations using the Epic electronic health record (EHR), we examined obesity and metabolic syndrome rates among adult and pediatric patients. We also examined screening rates for obesity related conditions and metabolic syndrome among adult and pediatric patients across the United States. We also sought to compare rates between subgroups within the population including age, sex, and race. Results: In our population, 45% of adults and 27% of pediatric population were obese by age and gender specific BMI criteria. 38% of the obese adult population had an ICD-10 code associated with the diagnosis vs. 52% of the pediatric population. Of adults meeting obesity criteria, 36% had results for appropriate, guideline-based blood laboratory testing for insulin resistance, 40–42% for dyslipidemia, and 55% for hepatic steatosis. 36% of obese adult patients had none of the recommended blood laboratory testing. 31% of the adult population met diagnostic criteria for metabolic syndrome. Of pediatric patients meeting obesity criteria, 27% had results for appropriate blood laboratory testing for insulin resistance, 28% for dyslipidemia, and 33% for hepatic steatosis. 59% of obese pediatric patients had none of the recommended blood laboratory testing. 3% of the pediatric population met criteria for diagnosis of metabolic syndrome. Discussion: This study represents one of the largest multicenter national cohorts assembled for studying metabolic syndrome (over 50 million patients) and demonstrates the power of emerging aggregated EHR tools for research. Although obesity is better diagnosed in pediatric patients than in adult patients, significantly lower screening rates for obesity related conditions occurred in pediatric patients compared to adults. Statistically significant, but clinically negligible differences in screening rates were found by race and gender. These results support smaller prior studies that suggest that obesity is under-diagnosed and obesity related conditions underscreened in pediatric and adult populations, and additionally suggests underdiagnosis of metabolic syndrome among United States pediatric and adult patients.

Assessing the Effect of Electronic Medical Record Note Template on Firearm Access Screening in High-Risk Children.

Children who survive a suicide attempt are at greater risk of later dying by suicide. Firearm screening and provision of lethal means restriction counseling may improve the safety of this high-risk cohort. Our objective was to determine firearm screening rates among children hospitalized after suicide attempts. We also assessed the effects of templating firearm screening questions into the psychiatric consultation note. This retrospective pre- and postintervention study identified children <19 years old admitted after a suicide attempt from January 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. In mid-2017, the psychiatry consult note incorporated a previously available optional firearm screening tool as an embedded field (intervention). The intervention effect on proportion of children at high risk screened for firearm access was assessed by interrupted time series analysis. Of 26 088 total admissions, 357 met inclusion criteria. The majority were teenagers (15 years old, interquartile range 14 to 16), 275 were female (77%), and 167 were White (47%). Overall, 286 (80%) of patients had firearm access screening documentation. Of the 71 (20%) without screening, 21 (30%) were discharged from the hospital; 50 (70%) were transferred to psychiatric facilities. There was no significant difference in screening rates after the intervention (Intervention shift P = .74, slope P = .85). Many children were not screened for firearm access after a suicide attempt requiring hospitalization despite the screening tool integration. Multidisciplinary quality improvement efforts are needed to ensure that this critical risk reduction intervention is implemented for all patients after a suicide attempt.

Changes in cancer screening before and during COVID-19: findings from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2019 and 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected every aspect of medical care. However, information regarding the impact of the pandemic on cancer screening is lacking. This study aimed to explore cancer screening changes by geographic region before and during the pandemic in Korea. Korean National Cancer Screening Survey data for 2019 and 2020 were used. Changes in the screening rate before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were calculated by subtracting the rate in 2020 from the rate in 2019. Multivariate logistic regression analyses examined the differences in screening rates at the national and 16 provincial levels before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. The 1-year screening rates for the four types of cancer decreased during the pandemic (stomach cancer: -5.1, colorectal cancer: -3.8, breast cancer: -2.5, cervical cancer: -1.5%p). In metropolitan areas, the odds of undergoing screening tests during the pandemic were significantly lower than before the pandemic for stomach (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.76), colorectal (aOR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79), and breast cancers (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.94). Furthermore, the likelihood of undergoing stomach cancer screening during the pandemic was significantly lower than before the pandemic in non-metropolitan urban areas (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94), while it was higher in rural areas (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.16). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer screening rate has decreased significantly, especially in large cities. Public health efforts are required to improve cancer screening rates.

The Impact of a Nurse-Led Service on Tobacco Treatment Provision Within a Psychiatric Hospital: A Time Series Study.

Psychiatric hospitalization is an opportunity to provide evidence-based tobacco treatment to optimize cessation efforts among people living with mental illnesses (MI). The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of nurse-driven initiatives to enhance tobacco treatment within an inpatient psychiatric setting. We assessed the 4-year impact of implementing a nurse-led tobacco treatment service offered to 11,314 inpatients at admissions in a tobacco-free psychiatric facility in Kentucky. Through a time-series design, we compared the differences in rates of screening for tobacco use and providing treatment from September to December 2015 (prior to implementing the nurse-led tobacco treatment services) to each subsequent year in a 4-year period (2016-2019). Approximately 60.0% of inpatients were persons using tobacco during the assessment period. Although there were no changes in tobacco use prevalence over the 4-year evaluation duration, there were significant increases in the provision of practical counseling and Food and Drug Administration-approved nicotine replacement therapies for persons using tobacco. Our findings support the effectiveness of implementing tobacco treatment programs at the organizational level. Psychiatric hospitalizations provide an opportunity to optimize nurse-driven efforts to deliver tobacco treatment to people with MI. Similar models of nurse-led tobacco treatment services can be adopted within inpatient and other mental and behavioral health settings.

Considerations to increase rates of breast cancer screening across populations.

COVID-19 has caused considerable drops in utilization of breast cancer screening services during the pandemic, especially among certain racial and ethnic groups. Members of the Community Oncology Alliance (COA)-including the COA president, South Carolina oncologist Kashyap Patel, MD-have reported increases in patients, particularly those of color, presenting with stage III and IV cancer at diagnosis. According to data released by the Biden administration, more than 9.5 million recommended cancer screenings had been missed in the United States as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as of February 2022. President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden, EdD, aim to address this in the 2022 revitalized Cancer Moonshot Initiative. The findings made by COA as well as by Avalere also suggest that the pandemic has exacerbated existing health care disparities. Using a multipayer database, we analyzed breast cancer screening rates for 2 periods-March 1 to September 30, 2019, and March 1 to September 30, 2020-among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS), managed Medicaid, and commercial insurance beneficiaries to understand the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adherence to the US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations, which are currently undergoing review. Screening rates were evaluated across 5 racial/ethnic groups and by payer type. Mean monthly mammogram screening rates among eligible White Medicare FFS beneficiaries dropped to 0.6% in April 2020, but these screening rates recovered to 6.5% by June 2020. Screening rates for eligible Black Medicare FFS beneficiaries recovered on a pace slightly slower than that of White beneficiaries, but more rapidly than that of other groups. By comparison, American Indian/Alaska Native beneficiaries had a mean monthly screening rate of 0.5% in April 2020, which recovered to 3.1% in June 2020; these were below 2019 screening rates of 4.2% for April and 3.9% for June. Differences in screening rates by payer type were also observed. Patients with commercial insurance had higher screening rates compared with those covered by Medicare FFS and managed Medicaid. Our principal finding shows that mean breast cancer screening rates decreased in April 2020 across all payers, but recovery to prepandemic screening levels has occurred more slowly among certain racial and ethnic minority groups. Differences in recovery rates by payer type highlight a strong relationship between income level and screening utilization.

Cancer Screening Among Current and Former U.S. Military Personnel Compared to Civilians: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Approximately 3% of invasive U.S. cancer diagnoses are made among veterans in a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic each year, while VA patients only comprise about 1.9% of the U.S. population. Although some research has shown that veterans have higher incidence rates of cancer compared to civilians, evidence is sparse regarding possible disparities in rates of cancer screening between these populations. Thus, the purpose of this study is to compare differences in rates of screening for colorectal, lung, breast, and cervical cancers between current and former U.S. Military service members and civilians. Using the data extracted from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed the rates of cancer screening among current and former U.S. Military service members compared to civilians from self-reported surveys assessing when individuals had been screened for colorectal or lung cancer among all participants and breast and cervical cancer among women participants. Persons greater than 25 years of age were included in the cervical cancer screening, 50 years of age for colon cancer screening, and 40 years of age for the breast cancer screening-the latter based on recommendations from the American Cancer Society. We used multivariate logistic regression models to determine the adjusted risk ratios (ARRs) of current and former U.S. Military service members receiving screening compared to civilians, adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and health care coverage. Current and former U.S. Military service members accounted for 2.6% of individuals included for the cervical cancer screening analysis, 2.2% for the breast cancer screening analyses, nearly 10% of the lung cancer screening, and 15% of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening analyses. Prevalence of screening was higher for current and former U.S. Military service members among lung cancer and CRC. When controlling for age, race, education, and health care coverage, current and former U.S. Military service members were statistically more likely to be screened for CRC (ARR: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.07) and lung cancer (ARR: 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.52). The odds of having completed a cervical or breast cancer screening were not significantly different between groups. Our study showed that current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to complete CRC and lung cancer screenings, while no significant difference existed between each population with regard to cervical and breast cancer screenings. This is one of the few studies that have directly compared cancer screening usage among civilians and current and former U.S. Military service members. Although current and former U.S. Military service members were more likely to receive several cancer screenings, improvements can still be made to remove barriers and increase screening usage due to the disproportionate rates of cancer mortality in this population. These solutions should be comprehensive-addressing personal, organizational, and societal barriers-to improve prognosis and survival rates among current and former U.S. Military service members.

Analysis of cervical cancer screening and related factors in China

Objective: To study the cervical cancer screening rate and related factors among women in China. Methods: In 2015, Chinese Chronic Diseases and Risk Factors Surveillance in Adults was conducted in 298 counties or districts using the multistage stratified cluster sampling in China. The study investigated 91 348 women aged 20 years or older who lived in the local at least 6 months in the past year. We collected the information about cervical cancer screening and socio-demographic factors through face-to-face interview. The screening rate was calculated by the complex sampling design and populating weighting. Rao-Scott χ2 was used to test the differences in screening rates within subgroups. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the factors associated with the uptake of cervical cancer screening. Results: The mean age of participants was (51±14) years old. The cervical cancer screening rate was 23.6% (n=21 346), and there was a significant difference in the screening rates among age groups. The cervical cancer screening rate in women aged 40-49 years was 34.8% (n=7 043). There was significant difference in the screening rates among geographic areas and the highest screening rate was 27.9% (n=6 707) in the eastern China. The more likelihood of uptake of cervical cancer screening was significantly associated with living in high-income regions, higher education, non-agriculture employment, higher household income, having medical insurance, and having health check-up during the past three years, and the cervical screening rate was higher (all P<0.05) . Conclusion: The cervical cancer screening rate is low in China and there was significant difference in the age and geographic areas. The uptake of cervical cancer screening is associated with local economic status, household income, education, employment, health insurance, and health check-up.

National disparities in colorectal cancer screening in patients with comorbid conditions: an analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Each year, approximately 53,200 people die in the U.S. from colorectal cancer (CRC), indicating a need to increase screening efforts. Some studies have suggested mammography use is higher in patients with comorbid conditions, a reflection of increased follow up. Another study found that patients with obesity were less likely to be screened for CRC than nonobese patients. However, no study has assessed the impact of multiple comorbidities on CRC screening. To analyze CRC screening rates in patients with comorbidities compared with healthy patients, and to assess whether the number of comorbid diagnoses impacted screening rates. A cross sectional analysis of patients who received CRC screening was performed using the 2018 and 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Respondents were classified as having had CRC screening if they answered "yes" to either of the following: "Have you ever had a blood stool test?" or "Have you ever had a sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy?" Respondents younger than age 50 were excluded. A weighted multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to determine adjusted risk ratios (ARR). Confidence intervals (CI) were reported at 95%. We identified 279,784 respondents who met inclusion criteria. Of those, 79.7% (sample n=222,879; population N=46,304,360) of respondents had received CRC screening. Patients with diabetes, hypertension, skin cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), arthritis, depression, and chronic kidney disease were significantly more likely to be screened than those without comorbidities. There was no statistically significant difference in screening rates between patients with and without cardiovascular disease. Compared with patients with zero comorbidities, those with one were significantly more likely to receive screening (ARR, 1.11; CI, 1.09-1.12) as were those with two to four (ARR, 1.2; CI, 1.18-1.22). Patients with five or more comorbidities were significantly less likely to be screened than those with two to four (ARR, 1.12; CI, 1.1-1.14). Patients with one or more comorbidities were more likely to be screened than those without comorbidities, but those with five or more conditions were less likely to be screened than patients with two to four conditions. This indicates that physicians may be more fatigued and less likely to recommend CRC screening to patients with many comorbidities compared with patients diagnosed with only a few conditions. The results of this study add to the literature by identifying an interaction between the number of comorbidities and likelihood of being screened for CRC.