Literature DB >> 26331705

Population-based programs for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the United States.

Manisha Verma1, Mona Sarfaty2, Durado Brooks3, Richard C Wender4.   

Abstract

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Screening to detect polyps or cancer at an early stage has been shown to produce better outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC). Programs with a population-based approach can reach a large majority of the eligible population and can offer cost-effective interventions with the potential benefit of maximizing early cancer detection and prevention using a complete follow-up plan. The purpose of this review was to summarize the key features of population-based programs to increase CRC screening in the United States. A search was conducted in the SCOPUS, OvidSP, and PubMed databases. The authors selected published reports of population-based programs that met at least 5 of the 6 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for cancer prevention and were known to the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Interventions at the level of individual practices were not included in this review. IARC cancer prevention criteria served as a framework to assess the effective processes and elements of a population-based program. Eight programs were included in this review. Half of the programs met all IARC criteria, and all programs led to improvements in screening rates. The rate of colonoscopy after a positive stool test was heterogeneous among programs. Different population-based strategies were used to promote these screening programs, including system-based, provider-based, patient-based, and media-based strategies. Treatment of identified cancer cases was not included explicitly in 4 programs but was offered through routine medical care. Evidence-based methods for promoting CRC screening at a population level can guide the development of future approaches in health care prevention. The key elements of a successful population-based approach include adherence to the 6 IARC criteria and 4 additional elements (an identified external funding source, a structured policy for positive fecal occult blood test results and confirmed cancer cases, outreach activities for recruitment and patient education, and an established rescreening process).
© 2015 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  colorectal cancer screening; mass screening; organized screening program; population management; prevention program

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26331705     DOI: 10.3322/caac.21295

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin        ISSN: 0007-9235            Impact factor:   508.702


  16 in total

1.  'Simple and easy:' providers' and latinos' perceptions of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Claudia X Aguado Loi; Dinorah Martinez Tyson; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Liliana Gutierrez; Lynne Klasko; Stacy Davis; Diana Lopez; Tracy Johns; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede
Journal:  Ethn Health       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 2.772

2.  Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

Authors:  Ethan A Halm; Elisabeth F Beaber; Dale McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Carolyn M Rutter; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Bijal A Balasubramanian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates.

Authors:  Jennifer K Coury; Jennifer L Schneider; Beverly B Green; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Amanda F Petrik; Jennifer S Rivelli; Malaika R Schwartz; Gloria D Coronado
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Capsule Commentary on Halm et al., Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

Authors:  Archana Radhakrishnan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Patient-Initiated Colonoscopy Scheduling Effectively Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence.

Authors:  Gautam Mankaney; Maged Rizk; Shashank Sarvepalli; Jeannie Bongorno; Ari Garber; Rocio Lopez; John McMichael; Carol A Burke
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Editorial: Financial Incentives to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening: Does it Make Cents?

Authors:  Jeffrey Adler; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  FOXD4 induces tumor progression in colorectal cancer by regulation of the SNAI3/CDH1 axis.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Maimaiti Aihemaiti; Xin Zhang; Hui Qu; Jie Jiao; Qilong Sun; Wenbin Yu
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 4.742

8.  Assessing adherence and cost-benefit of colorectal cancer screening for accountable providers.

Authors:  Trace Heavener; Frank W McStay; Victoria Jaeger; Kristen Stephenson; Lauren Sager; James Sing
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2019-08-21

9.  Coiled-Coil Domain-Containing 68 Downregulation Promotes Colorectal Cancer Cell Growth by Inhibiting ITCH-Mediated CDK4 Degradation.

Authors:  Cong Wang; Hongyan Li; Lei Wu; Xueli Jiao; Zihui Jin; Yujie Zhu; Ziling Fang; Xiaodong Zhang; Haishan Huang; Lingling Zhao
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  The clinical utility and outcomes of microwave ablation for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

Authors:  Pengyuan Song; Lijun Sheng; Yahong Sun; Yuji An; Ya Guo; Yafei Zhang
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-02-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.