Krishna P Sharma1, Steven Leadbetter1, Amy DeGroff1. 1. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funds the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in primary care clinics by implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This study examined differences in clinic characteristics and implementation efforts among clinics with differential changes in screening rates over time. METHODS: CRCCP clinic data collected by the CDC were used. The outcome was the clinic status (highest quartile [Q4] vs lowest quartile [Q1]), which was based on the absolute screening rate change between the first and second program years. Five clinic characteristic variables and 12 clinic-level CRCCP variables (eg, EBIs) were assessed in bivariable analyses, and logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of the outcome. RESULTS: Each group included 78 clinics (N = 156). Clinics with a Q4 status saw a 14.9 percentage point increase in the screening rate, whereas clinics with a Q1 status experienced a 9.1 percentage point decline. Q4s were more likely than Q1s to have a CRC champion, implement 4 EBIs versus fewer EBIs, implement at least 1 new EBI, and increase the number of implemented EBIs. The adjusted odds of Q4 status were 5.3 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-14.9) if a clinic implemented an additional EBI. The adjusted odds of Q4 status increased to 7.1 (95% CI, 2.2-23.1) if a clinic implemented 2 to 4 additional EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing new EBIs or enhancing existing ones improves CRC screening rates. Additionally, clinics with lower screening rates had greater rate increases and may have benefited more from the CRCCP.
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funds the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in primary care clinics by implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This study examined differences in clinic characteristics and implementation efforts among clinics with differential changes in screening rates over time. METHODS: CRCCP clinic data collected by the CDC were used. The outcome was the clinic status (highest quartile [Q4] vs lowest quartile [Q1]), which was based on the absolute screening rate change between the first and second program years. Five clinic characteristic variables and 12 clinic-level CRCCP variables (eg, EBIs) were assessed in bivariable analyses, and logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of the outcome. RESULTS: Each group included 78 clinics (N = 156). Clinics with a Q4 status saw a 14.9 percentage point increase in the screening rate, whereas clinics with a Q1 status experienced a 9.1 percentage point decline. Q4s were more likely than Q1s to have a CRC champion, implement 4 EBIs versus fewer EBIs, implement at least 1 new EBI, and increase the number of implemented EBIs. The adjusted odds of Q4 status were 5.3 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-14.9) if a clinic implemented an additional EBI. The adjusted odds of Q4 status increased to 7.1 (95% CI, 2.2-23.1) if a clinic implemented 2 to 4 additional EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing new EBIs or enhancing existing ones improves CRC screening rates. Additionally, clinics with lower screening rates had greater rate increases and may have benefited more from the CRCCP.
Keywords:
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; colorectal cancer screening; colorectal neoplasms; early detection of cancer; evidence-based medicine; primary health care
Authors: Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Marielena Rojas; Silvia Mercado; Adriana M Bearse; Jasmine Camacho; Manuel Song Lopez; Fatima Muñoz; Shawne O'Connell; Lin Liu; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S Jane Henley; Elizabeth M Ward; Susan Scott; Jiemin Ma; Robert N Anderson; Albert U Firth; Cheryll C Thomas; Farhad Islami; Hannah K Weir; Denise Riedel Lewis; Recinda L Sherman; Manxia Wu; Vicki B Benard; Lisa C Richardson; Ahmedin Jemal; Kathleen Cronin; Betsy A Kohler Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Melinda M Davis; Michele Freeman; Jackilen Shannon; Gloria D Coronado; Kurt C Stange; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Stephanie B Wheeler; David I Buckley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Djenaba A Joseph; Jessica B King; Nicole F Dowling; Cheryll C Thomas; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Sarah D Hohl; Stephanie Melillo; Thuy T Vu; Cam Escoffery; Amy DeGroff; Dara Schlueter; Leslie W Ross; Annette E Maxwell; Krishna P Sharma; Jennifer Boehm; Djenaba Joseph; Peggy A Hannon Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.354