Krishna P Sharma1, Amy DeGroff2, Lia Scott2, Sundar Shrestha3, Stephanie Melillo2, Susan A Sabatino2. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. Electronic address: KSharma@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA, United States of America. 3. Office of Smoking Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts. METHODS: Using data (2015-16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates. RESULTS: Clinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (<1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts. METHODS: Using data (2015-16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates. RESULTS: Clinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (<1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinic contexts; Colorectal cancer screening; Colorectal neoplasms; Community health centers; Early detection of cancer; Evidence based practices; Evidence-based interventions (EBI); Primary care clinics; Screening interventions
Authors: Greg Rubin; Annette Berendsen; S Michael Crawford; Rachel Dommett; Craig Earle; Jon Emery; Tom Fahey; Luigi Grassi; Eva Grunfeld; Sumit Gupta; Willie Hamilton; Sara Hiom; David Hunter; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Una Macleod; Robert Mason; Geoffrey Mitchell; Richard D Neal; Michael Peake; Martin Roland; Bohumil Seifert; Jeff Sisler; Jonathan Sussman; Stephen Taplin; Peter Vedsted; Teja Voruganti; Fiona Walter; Jane Wardle; Eila Watson; David Weller; Richard Wender; Jeremy Whelan; James Whitlock; Clare Wilkinson; Niek de Wit; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Stephanie B Wheeler; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Ravi K Goyal; Anne-Marie Meyer; Kristen Hassmiller Lich; Emily M Gillen; Seth Tyree; Carmen L Lewis; Trisha M Crutchfield; Christa E Martens; Florence Tangka; Lisa C Richardson; Michael P Pignone Journal: Health Place Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Shivan J Mehta; Yingye Zheng; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale F McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Douglas A Corley; John M Inadomi; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Jennifer S Lin; Margaret A Piper; Leslie A Perdue; Carolyn M Rutter; Elizabeth M Webber; Elizabeth O'Connor; Ning Smith; Evelyn P Whitlock Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Guruprasad D Jambaulikar; Hassan Fouayzi; Scott B Robinson; Margaret J Gunter; Terry S Field; Douglas W Roblin; Robert H Fletcher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Aruna Kamineni; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Brian Hixon; Sarah C Kobrin; Christopher I Li; Malia Oliver; Katharine A Rendle; Celette Sugg Skinner; Kaitlin Todd; Yingye Zheng; Rebecca A Ziebell; Erica S Breslau; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Robert T Greenlee; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Stacey Honda; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Debra P Ritzwoller; Joanne E Schottinger; Jasmin A Tiro; Anil Vachani; V Paul Doria-Rose Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Krishna P Sharma; Amy DeGroff; Sarah D Hohl; Annette E Maxwell; Ngoc Cam Escoffery; Susan A Sabatino; Djenaba A Joseph Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2022-07-09
Authors: Cynthia M Mojica; Rose Gunn; Robyn Pham; Edward J Miech; Ann Romer; Stephanie Renfro; Khaya D Clark; Melinda M Davis Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 4.430