Steven H Itzkowitz1,2, Sidney J Winawer3,4, Marian Krauskopf5, Mari Carlesimo5, Felice H Schnoll-Sussman6, Katy Huang5, Thomas K Weber7,8, Lina Jandorf2. 1. Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 2. Department of Oncological Sciences, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. Gastroenterology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, New York. 5. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York. 6. Department of Clinical Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Surgery, State University of New York Health Sciences Center, Brooklyn, New York. 8. VA Brooklyn Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a widely accepted concept nationally and screening rates are increasing, there are differences in screening rates between states and within states. METHODS: In an effort to increase screening rates and ensure equal access with respect to race/ethnicity, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene formed a coalition of stakeholders in 2003, with its primary focus on colonoscopy, to develop and implement strategies across the city to achieve this goal. RESULTS: From a screening colonoscopy rate of only 42% in 2003, these concerted efforts contributed to achieving a screening rate of 62% by 2007 and a screening rate of almost 70% in 2014 with the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides details of how this program was successfully conceived, implemented, and sustained in the large urban population of New York City. The authors hope that by sharing the many elements involved and the lessons learned, they may help other communities to adapt these experiences to their own environments so that CRC screening rates can be maximized. Cancer 2016;122:269-277.
BACKGROUND: Although screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is a widely accepted concept nationally and screening rates are increasing, there are differences in screening rates between states and within states. METHODS: In an effort to increase screening rates and ensure equal access with respect to race/ethnicity, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene formed a coalition of stakeholders in 2003, with its primary focus on colonoscopy, to develop and implement strategies across the city to achieve this goal. RESULTS: From a screening colonoscopy rate of only 42% in 2003, these concerted efforts contributed to achieving a screening rate of 62% by 2007 and a screening rate of almost 70% in 2014 with the elimination of racial and ethnic disparities. CONCLUSIONS: This article provides details of how this program was successfully conceived, implemented, and sustained in the large urban population of New York City. The authors hope that by sharing the many elements involved and the lessons learned, they may help other communities to adapt these experiences to their own environments so that CRC screening rates can be maximized. Cancer 2016;122:269-277.
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Kelly Larson; Joslyn Levy; Martha G Rome; Thomas D Matte; Lynn D Silver; Thomas R Frieden Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Michelle G Dresser; Leslie Short; Laura Wedemeyer; Victoria Lowerson Bredow; Rachel Sacks; Kelly Larson; Joslyn Levy; Lynn D Silver Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2001 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lina Jandorf; Lauren M Stossel; Julia L Cooperman; Joshua Graff Zivin; Uri Ladabaum; Diana Hall; Linda D Thélémaque; William Redd; Steven H Itzkowitz Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S J Winawer; A G Zauber; M N Ho; M J O'Brien; L S Gottlieb; S S Sternberg; J D Waye; M Schapiro; J H Bond; J F Panish Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Katherine Ni; Kelli O'Connell; Sanya Anand; Stephanie C Yakoubovitch; Simona C Kwon; Rabia Ali de Latour; Andrew B Wallach; Scott E Sherman; Mengmeng Du; Peter S Liang Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Katherine N DuHamel; Elizabeth A Schofield; Cristina Villagra; Pathu Sriphanlop; Steven H Itzkowitz; Gina Cotter; Noah Cohen; Deborah O Erwin; Gary Winkel; Hayley S Thompson; Ann G Zauber; Lina H Jandorf Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Emily B Peterson; Jamie S Ostroff; Katherine N DuHamel; Thomas A D'Agostino; Marisol Hernandez; Mollie R Canzona; Carma L Bylund Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Yakira David; Lorenzo Ottaviano; Jihye Park; Sadat Iqbal; Michelle Likhtshteyn; Samir Kumar; Helen Lyo; Ayanna E Lewis; Brandon E Lung; Jesse T Frye; Li Huang; Ellen Li; Jie Yang; Laura Martello; Shivakumar Vignesh; Joshua D Miller; Michele Follen; Evan B Grossman Journal: J Cancer Ther Date: 2019-04-09
Authors: Jennifer J Brown; Charles K Asumeng; David Greenwald; Matthew Weissman; Ann Zauber; Jared Striplin; Olivia Weng; Justin M List; Shannon M Farley; Sidney J Winawer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.295