Disparities In Screening Uptake Research Articles

The effect of mailed outreach on FIT completion among patients aged 45-50 in a safety net healthcare system.

Colorectal cancer screening is recommended starting at age 45, but there has been little research on strategies to promote screening in patients younger than 50. An outreach program quasi-randomly assigned patients aged 45-50 without recent fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy or contraindications to screening to two intervention arms: electronic outreach with email and text (electronic outreach only)versus electronic outreach plus mailed outreach with FIT, an instructional letter and a prepaid return envelope (mailed + electronic outreach). In response to known disparities in screening uptake, all Black patients were assigned to receive mailed + electronic outreach. Among patients quasi-randomly assigned to an intervention (non-Black patients), the 180-day FIT completion rate was 18.8% in the electronic outreach only group (n = 1,318) and 25.0% in the mailed + electronic outreach group (n = 1,364) (difference 6.2% [95% CI 3.0, 9.4]). FIT completion was 16.6% among Black patients (n = 469), 8.4% (95% CI 4.1, 12.6) lower than among non-Black patients also assigned to mailed + electronic outreach. Among patients aged 45-50, mailed + electronic outreach had a greater effect on FIT completion than electronic outreach alone. Crossover between intervention groups likely lead to an underestimation of the effect of mailed outreach.

A registry-based study on universal screening for defective mismatch repair in colorectal cancer in Denmark highlights disparities in screening uptake and counselling referrals

Universal screening for defective mismatch repair (dMMR) in colorectal cancer utilizes immunohistochemical staining for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PSM2. Additionally, BRAF V600E mutations status and MLH1 hypermethylation should be performed to distinguish germline and somatic dMMR alterations. A decade of Danish population-based registries has been analysed regarding screening uptake, detection rate and referral to genetic counselling. MMR testing was performed in 71·8% (N = 34,664) of newly diagnosed colorectal cancers with an increasing trend to 88·8% coverage in the study's final year. The likelihood of undergoing MMR testing was reduced in males with 2% (95% CI 0·4–2·7, p = 0·008), with 4·1% in patients above age 70 years (95% CI 1·5–6·6, p = 0·003) compared in patients below age 51 years, with 16·3% in rectal cancers (95% CI 15·1–17·6, p < 0·001) and 1·4% left-sided colon cancers (95% CI 0·1–1·7, p = 0·03) compared to right-sided colon cancers. Tumour stage II and III increased the likelihood of being tested, with 3·7% for stage II (95% CI 2·2–5·6, p < 0·001) and 3·3% for stage III tumours (95% CI 1·8–4·8, p < 0·001) compared to stage I tumours, whereas the likelihood for stage IV tumours is reduced by 35·7% (95% CI 34·2–37·2, p < 0·001). Test rates significantly differed between the Danish health care regions. dMMR was identified in 15·1% (95% CI 14·8–15·6, p < 0·001) cases with somatic MMR inactivation in 6·7% of the cases. 8·3% tumours showed hereditary dMMR expression patterns, and 20·0% of those were referred to genetic counselling. Despite the high uptake rates, we found disparities between patient groups and missed opportunities for genetic diagnostics.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BackgroundScreening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs—the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program—to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsHealth systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.ConclusionIntegrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Lung Cancer Screening by Race and Ethnicity in an Integrated Health System in Hawaii

Racial and ethnic differences in lung cancer screening (LCS) completion and follow-up may be associated with lung cancer incidence and mortality rates among high-risk populations. Aggregation of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander racial and ethnic groups may mask the true underlying disparities in screening uptake and diagnostic follow-up, creating barriers for targeted, preventive health care. To examine racial and ethnic differences in LCS completion and follow-up rates in a multiethnic population. This population-based cohort study was conducted at a health maintenance organization in Hawaii. LCS program participants were identified using electronic medical records from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019. Study eligibility requirements included being aged 55 to 79 years, a 30 pack-year smoking history, a current smoker or having quit within the past 15 years, at least 5 years past any lung cancer diagnosis and treatment, and cancer free. Data analysis was performed from June 2019 to October 2020. Eligible for LCS. Screening rates were analyzed by self-reported race and ethnicity and completion of a low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) test. Diagnostic follow-up results were based on the Lung Imaging Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS) staging system. A total of 1030 eligible LCS program members had an order placed; their mean (SD) age was 65.5 (5.8) years, and 633 (61%) were men. The largest racial and ethnic groups were non-Hispanic White (381 participants [37.0%]), Native Hawaiian or part Native Hawaiian (186 participants [18.1%]), and Japanese (146 participants [14.2%]). Men and Filipino, Chinese, Japanese, and non-Hispanic White individuals had a higher proportion of screen orders for LDCT compared with women and individuals of the other racial and ethnic groups. The overall LCS completion rate was 81% (838 participants). There was a 14% to 15% screening completion rate gap among groups. Asian individuals had the highest screening completion rate (266 participants [86%]) followed by Native Hawaiian (149 participants [80%]) and non-Hispanic White individuals (305 participants [80%]), Pacific Islander (50 participants [79%]) individuals, and individuals of other racial and ethnic groups (68 participants [77%]). Within Asian subgroups, Korean (31 participants [94%]) and Japanese (129 participants [88%]) individuals had the highest completion rates followed by Chinese individuals (28 participants [82%]) and Filipino individuals (78 participants [79%]). Of the 54 participants with Lung-RADS stage 3 disease, 93% (50 participants) completed a 6-month surveillance LDCT test; of 37 individuals with Lung-RADS stage 4 disease, 35 (97%) were followed-up for additional procedures. This cohort study found racial and ethnic disparities in LCS completion rates after disaggregation of Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Asian individuals and their subgroups. These findings suggest that future research is needed to understand factors that may be associated with LCS completion and follow-up behaviors among these racial and ethnic groups.

Disparities in surveillance imaging after breast conserving surgery for primary DCIS.

6516 Background: Due to the elevated risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (iIBC) after diagnosis with primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), professional guidelines recommend surveillance screening within 6-12 months (mo) after completion of initial local treatment and annually thereafter. To characterize adherence to these guidelines, we explored longitudinal patterns of utilization and factors associated with the use of surveillance imaging (mammography, MRI, ultrasound) for women with primary DCIS treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) ± radiotherapy (RT) within 6 mo of diagnosis. Methods: A treatment-stratified random sample of patients diagnosed with screen-detected and biopsy-confirmed DCIS in 2008-15 was selected from 1,330 Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities (up to 20/site) in the US. All imaging exams coded as asymptomatic were collected from 6 mo up to 10 years (yr) post-diagnosis. Time was defined according to 12-mo long surveillance periods. To be included in a given surveillance period, women had to be alive and free of a new breast cancer diagnosis through the end of the period. Women were classified as “consistent” screeners if they had at least one surveillance screen during each period, for the first 5 yr post-treatment or until censoring, whichever occurred first. Repeated measures multivariable logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to model receipt of surveillance breast imaging over time. The model included clinical and socioeconomic features. Results: The final analytic cohort contained 12,559 women; 8,989 (71.6%) received RT after BCS. Median age was 60 yr (interquartile range: 52-69) and median follow-up was 5.6 yr (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.6-5.7). Among women who received BCS (instead of BCS+RT), 62.5% (79.7%) underwent surveillance imaging within 6-18 mo after diagnosis. 38.7% (54.0%) were categorized as “consistent” screeners. Compared to white women, Black women were less likely to receive surveillance screening after treatment for primary DCIS (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.94). Hispanic ethnicity had a similar association (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99) compared to non-Hispanic ethnicity. Women with private insurance, compared to government insurance, were more likely to receive screening (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.30). Prognostic tumor features indicative of a higher risk of subsequent iIBC, including higher grade, presence of comedonecrosis, and hormone receptor-negative DCIS, were not associated with screening uptake. Conclusions: Despite guidelines recommending annual surveillance imaging, many women with primary DCIS do not undergo regular imaging after BCS. The findings from this US-based study suggest that disparities in screening uptake are associated with race/ethnicity and insurance status rather than prognostic tumor features.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Socioeconomic determinants of cancer screening utilisation in Latin America: A systematic review.

Cancer incidence and mortality in Latin America are rising. While effective cancer screening services, accessible to the whole population and enabling early cancer detection are needed, existing research shows the existence of disparities in screening uptake in the region. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the socioeconomic determinants for the disparities in the use of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening services in Latin America. We searched for studies reporting on socioeconomic determinants impacting on access to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening, published from 2009 through 2018. The studies that qualified for inclusion contained original analyses on utilisation of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening across socioeconomic levels in Latin America. For each study, paired reviewers performed a quality analysis followed by detailed review and data extraction. Twenty-four articles that met the eligibility criteria and were of sufficient quality were included in this review. Thirteen of the included articles were written in English, eight in Portuguese and three in Spanish, and they reported on the use of breast or cervical cancer screening. No studies were found on the socioeconomic determinants regarding the utilisation of colorectal cancer screening in Latin America. Low income, low education level, lack of health insurance and single marital status were all found to be determinants of underuse of breast and cervical cancer screening services. Cancer screening programs in the region must prioritize reaching those populations that underuse cancer screening services to ensure equitable access to preventive services. It is important to develop national screening programmes that are accessible to all (including uninsured people) through, for example, the use of mobile units for mammography and self-screening methods.

Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States Before and After Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is major cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Screening, however, is suboptimal and there are disparities in outcomes. After health policy changes and national efforts to increase rates of screening and address inequities, we aimed to examine progress towards eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in CRC screening. We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults (age 50-75 years) included in the behavioral risk factors surveillance system survey. The main outcome was CRC screening status. We determined screening rates overall and by race and ethnicity (1 variable) for each survey year from 2008 through 2016 and used Joinpoint analyses to determine significant trends in rates over time by race and ethnicity. We also examined screening modalities used overall and by race and ethnicity. We analyzed data from 1,089,433 respondents. Screening uptake was 61.1% in 2008 and 67.6% in 2016 (P < .001); it was highest among whites and lowest among Hispanics. Only whites, Hispanics, and Asians had significantly higher screening rates in each study year (P < .001). Despite increasing rates among Hispanics, the screening rate disparity between whites and Hispanics was 17% at the end of the study period. Screening rates in blacks did not change with time and were 4.0% lower than the rate in whites in 2016. Other racial and ethnic groups had varying levels of improvement with time. Colonoscopy was the most common modality each year. In a cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults, we found that although rates of CRC screening have increased overall since 2008, they have increased disproportionately in each racial and ethnic group, and disparities in screening uptake persist.

Organizational Factors Associated with Disparities in Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Community Health Centers.

Community health centers provide care to underserved populations least likely to adhere to cancer screening guidelines, but vary in their ability to ensure eligible patients are identified and screened. This study examines organizational factors associated with cervical and colorectal cancer screening rates among health centers funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Data were drawn from the 2015 Uniform Data System and analyzed using negative binomial regression. On average, 53% of eligible health center patients were screened for cervical cancer and 37% for colorectal cancer. Organizational characteristics positively associated with cancer screening rates include provider-patient staffing ratios, electronic health record status, percentage revenue from public capitated managed care, and local primary care provider availability. Percentage of homeless patients was negatively associated with screening. Efforts to improve cancer screening among underserved populations should address organizational factors that may contribute to disparities in screening uptake.

Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.

ObjectiveInequalities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, with people from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds less likely to participate. Identifying the facilitators and barriers to screening uptake is important to addressing screening disparities. We pooled data from 2 trials to examine educational differences in psychological constructs related to guaiac fecal occult blood testing.MethodsPatients (n = 8576) registered at 7 general practices in England, within 15 years of the eligible age range for screening (45‐59.5 years), were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included perceived barriers (emotional and practical) and benefits of screening, screening intentions, and participant characteristics including education.ResultsAfter data pooling, 2181 responses were included. People with high school education or no formal education reported higher emotional and practical barriers and were less likely to definitely intend to participate in screening, compared with university graduates in analyses controlling for study arm and participant characteristics. The belief that one would worry more about CRC after screening and concerns about tempting fate were strongly negatively associated with education. In a model including education and participant characteristics, respondents with low emotional barriers, low practical barriers, and high perceived benefits were more likely to definitely intend to take part in screening.ConclusionsIn this analysis of adults approaching the CRC screening age, there was a consistent effect of education on perceived barriers toward guaiac fecal occult blood testing, which could affect screening decision making. Interventions should target specific barriers to reduce educational disparities in screening uptake and avoid exacerbating inequalities in CRC mortality.

The burden of cancer risk in Canada's indigenous population: a comparative study of known risks in a Canadian region.

BackgroundCanadian First Nations, the largest of the Aboriginal groups in Canada, have had lower cancer incidence and mortality rates than non-Aboriginal populations in the past. This pattern is changing with increased life expectancy, a growing population, and a poor social environment that influences risk behaviors, metabolic conditions, and disparities in screening uptake. These factors alone do not fully explain differences in cancer risk between populations, as genetic susceptibility and environmental factors also have significant influence. However, genetics and environment are difficult to modify. This study compared modifiable behavioral risk factors and metabolic-associated conditions for men and women, and cancer screening practices of women, between First Nations living on-reserve and a non-First Nations Manitoba rural population (Canada).MethodsThe study used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey and the Manitoba First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey to examine smoking, binge drinking, metabolic conditions, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption, and cancer-screening practices.ResultsFirst Nations on-reserve had significantly higher rates of smoking (P < 0.001), binge drinking (P < 0.001), obesity (P < 0.001) and diabetes (P < 0.001), and less leisure-time physical activity (P = 0.029), and consumption of fruits and vegetables (P < 0.001). Sex differences were also apparent. In addition, First Nations women reported significantly less uptake of mammography screening (P < 0.001) but similar rates for cervical cancer screening.ConclusionsBased on the findings of this retrospective study, the future cancer burden is expected to be high in the First Nations on-reserve population. Interventions, utilizing existing and new health and social authorities, and long-term institutional partnerships, are required to combat cancer risk disparities, while governments address economic disparities.

Socio-demographic disparities in the uptake of prenatal screening and diagnosis in Western Australia

Since the early 1980s, prenatal screening using ultrasound and biochemical markers has been used to refine the risk of Down syndrome and other fetal anomalies prior to considering fetal karyotyping. The performance of prenatal screening is subject to ongoing monitoring in Western Australia. The collection of these data can also assist in the identification of any potential inequities of access to prenatal screening within the state-wide programme. Prenatal screening data (2005-2006) were collected from accredited ultrasound and pathology laboratories in Western Australia. Screening data were linked to diagnostic and pregnancy outcome data. Performance characteristics of screening and uptake by socio-demographic characteristics were analysed. Complete screening data were collected for 35,142 of the estimated 38,081 women screened during 2005 and 2006. There were 59,999 births related to this screening period. The lowest uptake of screening was among women who were Aboriginal (14.9%), living in remote areas (38.0%), under the age of 25 (40.2%), in the lowest quintile of the SEIFA index (41.6%) and with three or more children (48.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed all socio-demographic factors to be strongly associated with screening behaviour, with adjustment for ethnicity, socio-economic status, age, parity and area of residence. Our results have important implications for the delivery of prenatal screening services in Western Australia. While the screening programme meets international and national performance standards, the disparities in screening uptake suggest inequity in access to services, particularly for Aboriginal, remote and socio-economically disadvantaged women.

A colorectal cancer prevention and screening program in community black churches: Kelly L. Choi, Mary E. Mitchell-beren, M.S., and Max E. Dodds, M.D., Hurley Medical Center, One Hurley Plaza, Flint, Michigan 48502

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is major cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Screening, however, is suboptimal and there are disparities in outcomes. After health policy changes and national efforts to increase rates of screening and address inequities, we aimed to examine progress towards eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in CRC screening.We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults (age 50–75 years) included in the behavioral risk factors surveillance system survey. The main outcome was CRC screening status. We determined screening rates overall and by race and ethnicity (1 variable) for each survey year from 2008 through 2016 and used Joinpoint analyses to determine significant trends in rates over time by race and ethnicity. We also examined screening modalities used overall and by race and ethnicity.We analyzed data from 1,089,433 respondents. Screening uptake was 61.1% in 2008 and 67.6% in 2016 (P < .001); it was highest among whites and lowest among Hispanics. Only whites, Hispanics, and Asians had significantly higher screening rates in each study year (P < .001). Despite increasing rates among Hispanics, the screening rate disparity between whites and Hispanics was 17% at the end of the study period. Screening rates in blacks did not change with time and were 4.0% lower than the rate in whites in 2016. Other racial and ethnic groups had varying levels of improvement with time. Colonoscopy was the most common modality each year.In a cross-sectional analysis of average-risk adults, we found that although rates of CRC screening have increased overall since 2008, they have increased disproportionately in each racial and ethnic group, and disparities in screening uptake persist.