Nancy N Baxter1,2,3,4, Rinku Sutradhar3,4, Qing Li3, Corinne Daly1, Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar1, Devon P Richardson2, Lisa Del Giudice5, Jill Tinmouth3,4,6, Lawrence Paszat3,4,6, Linda Rabeneck3,4,7. 1. Department of Surgery, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 3. Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 6. Odette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada. 7. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain suboptimal. The impact of provider strategies to enhance screening participation in the population is uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of provider strategies to increase screening in a single-payer system. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in primary care providers (PCPs) linked to patients using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients were due for CRC screening from April 2012 to March 2013. Patients were followed up until 31 March 2014. We determined time to become up-to-date with CRC screening. Cox proportional hazards models examined the association between PCP strategies and uptake of screening, adjusted for physician and patient factors. RESULTS: A total of 717 PCPs and their 147,834 rostered patients due for CRC screening were included. Most physicians employed strategies to enhance screening participation, including electronic medical record use, reminders, generation of lists, audit and feedback reports, or designating staff responsible for screening. No single strategy was strongly associated with screening. For those >1 year overdue, a systematic approach to generate lists of patients overdue for screening was weakly associated with screening uptake (hazard ratio (HR)=1.14, 95% CI: 1.03-1.26, P=0.04 >5 years overdue vs. <1 year overdue). The use of multiple PCP strategies was associated with screening participation (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.16-1.39, P<0.0001 for PCPs using 4-5 vs. 0-1 strategies). Practice-based strategies were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, while individual PCP strategies have little effect, the use of multiple strategies to enhance screening appears to improve CRC screening uptake in patients.
OBJECTIVES: Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain suboptimal. The impact of provider strategies to enhance screening participation in the population is uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of provider strategies to increase screening in a single-payer system. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in primary care providers (PCPs) linked to patients using administrative data in Ontario, Canada. Patients were due for CRC screening from April 2012 to March 2013. Patients were followed up until 31 March 2014. We determined time to become up-to-date with CRC screening. Cox proportional hazards models examined the association between PCP strategies and uptake of screening, adjusted for physician and patient factors. RESULTS: A total of 717 PCPs and their 147,834 rostered patients due for CRC screening were included. Most physicians employed strategies to enhance screening participation, including electronic medical record use, reminders, generation of lists, audit and feedback reports, or designating staff responsible for screening. No single strategy was strongly associated with screening. For those >1 year overdue, a systematic approach to generate lists of patients overdue for screening was weakly associated with screening uptake (hazard ratio (HR)=1.14, 95% CI: 1.03-1.26, P=0.04 >5 years overdue vs. <1 year overdue). The use of multiple PCP strategies was associated with screening participation (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.16-1.39, P<0.0001 for PCPs using 4-5 vs. 0-1 strategies). Practice-based strategies were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, while individual PCP strategies have little effect, the use of multiple strategies to enhance screening appears to improve CRC screening uptake in patients.
Authors: Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Gladys N Honein-AbouHaidar; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Rinku Sutradhar; Jill Tinmouth; Nancy N Baxter Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jill Tinmouth; Nancy N Baxter; Lawrence F Paszat; Linda Rabeneck; Rinku Sutradhar; Lingsong Yun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Tavakkoli; Henry D Appelman; David G Beer; Chaitra Madiyal; Maryam Khodadost; Kimberly Nofz; Val Metko; Grace Elta; Thomas Wang; Joel H Rubenstein Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Laura A Brady; Laurene M Tumiel-Berhalter; Laura A Schad; Alexandrea Bentham; Karen Vitale; Amanda Norton; Gary Noronha; Carlos Swanger; Christopher P Morley Journal: J Patient Cent Res Rev Date: 2021-10-18
Authors: Jason Liwen Huang; Yuan Fang; Miaoyin Liang; Shannon Ts Li; Simpson Kc Ng; Zero Sn Hui; Jessica Ching; Harry Haoxiang Wang; Martin Chi Sang Wong Journal: AIMS Public Health Date: 2017-06-22