Kelsey M Leach1, Marni E Granzow1, Madyson L Popalis1, Kelsey C Stoltzfus1, Jennifer L Moss2. 1. Penn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, United States of America. 2. Penn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, United States of America. Electronic address: jmoss1@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection through screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, but approximately 33% of adults aged 50-75 are not getting screened as recommended. Many interventions to increase CRC screening have been tested, but clinical and community organizations may be challenged in identifying the optimum programs and program materials to increase screening and ultimately reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to characterize existing, US-based interventions to improve CRC screening and to identify gaps in the literature. We used t-tests and correlations to analyze the relationship between project features and intervention effect sizes. RESULTS: The overall effect sizes were + 16% for changes in screening by any modality. The average effect sizes were greater for projects with more components, used patient navigation, and provided free/low-cost testing. CONCLUSION: Interventions varied greatly in terms of follow-up time, test modality, and data sources. Organizations seeking to implement a program aimed at increasing CRC screening should consider both intervention components and relevant program materials.
BACKGROUND: Early detection through screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, but approximately 33% of adults aged 50-75 are not getting screened as recommended. Many interventions to increase CRC screening have been tested, but clinical and community organizations may be challenged in identifying the optimum programs and program materials to increase screening and ultimately reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to characterize existing, US-based interventions to improve CRC screening and to identify gaps in the literature. We used t-tests and correlations to analyze the relationship between project features and intervention effect sizes. RESULTS: The overall effect sizes were + 16% for changes in screening by any modality. The average effect sizes were greater for projects with more components, used patient navigation, and provided free/low-cost testing. CONCLUSION: Interventions varied greatly in terms of follow-up time, test modality, and data sources. Organizations seeking to implement a program aimed at increasing CRC screening should consider both intervention components and relevant program materials.
Authors: Suzanne Pingree; Robert Hawkins; Tim Baker; Lori duBenske; Linda J Roberts; David H Gustafson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Thomas D Denberg; John M Coombes; Tim E Byers; Alfred C Marcus; Lawrence E Feinberg; John F Steiner; Dennis J Ahnen Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-12-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stacy N Davis; Shannon M Christy; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Rania Abdulla; Steven K Sutton; Alyssa R Schmidt; Susan T Vadaparampil; Gwendolyn P Quinn; Vani N Simmons; Chukwudi B Ufondu; Chitra Ravindra; Ida Schultz; Richard G Roetzheim; David Shibata; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Matthew A Vargas; Olayemi O Matthew; Deloria R Jackson; Tifini Austin; Rima Tawk; Kristin Wallace; Clement K Gwede; John S Luque Journal: Cancer Health Disparities Date: 2021
Authors: Usha Menon; Peter Lance; Laura A Szalacha; Dianna Candito; Emily P Bobyock; Monica Yellowhair; Jennifer Hatcher Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-01-28