Michelle A Mollica1, Lindsey R Enewold2, Lisa M Lines3, Michael T Halpern3, Jessica R Schumacher4, Ron D Hays5, James T Gibson6, Nicola Schussler6, Erin E Kent2. 1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. michelle.mollica@nih.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Healthcare Delivery Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Research Triangle Institute, Waltham, MA, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Information Management Services, Rockville, MD, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test. RESULTS: Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.
PURPOSE: We examined associations between experiences of care and adherence to surveillance guidelines among Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Using linked data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End results (SEER) cancer registry program and the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient experience surveys (SEER-CAHPS), we identified local/regional CRC survivors diagnosed in 1999-2009 aged 65+, who underwent surgical resection and completed a CAHPS survey <36 months of diagnosis. Adherence for a 3-year observation period was defined as receiving a colonoscopy; ≥2 carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) tests; and each year had ≥2 office visits and ≥1 computerized tomography test. RESULTS: Many of the 314 participants reported ratings of a 9 or 10 out of 10 for overall care (55.4%), personal doctor (58.6%), health plan (59.6%), and specialist doctor (47.0%). Adherence to post-resection surveillance was 76.1% for office visits, 36.9% for CEA testing, 48.1% for colonoscopy, and 10.3% for CT Imaging. Overall, 37.9% of the sample were categorized as non-adherent (adhering to ≤1 surveillance guideline). In multivariable models, ratings of personal doctor and specialist doctor were positively associated with adherence to office visits, and ratings of personal doctor were associated with adherence overall. CONCLUSIONS: Findings point to the potentially important role of patient-provider relationships in adherence to office visits for CRC surveillance. As adherence may increase survival among CRC survivors, further investigation is needed to identify specific components of this relationship that impact office visit adherence, and other potentially modifiable drivers of surveillance guidelines.
Authors: Albert J Farias; Carol Y Ochoa; Gabriela Toledo; Soo-In Bang; Ann S Hamilton; Xianglin L Du Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Janeth I Sanchez; Veena Shankaran; Joseph M Unger; Margaret M Madeleine; Noah Espinoza; Beti Thompson Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Robert B Hines; Md Jibanul Haque Jiban; Kanak Choudhury; Victoria Loerzel; Adrian V Specogna; Steven P Troy; Shunpu Zhang Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Ryan M Fiano; Gregory S Merrick; Kim E Innes; Malcolm D Mattes; Traci J LeMasters; Chan Shen; Usha Sambamoorthi Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Marvella E Ford; Katherine R Sterba; Kent Armeson; Angela M Malek; Kendrea D Knight; Jane Zapka Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.771