RESUMEN

Lung cancer remains the number one cancer related mortality in the United States . While it is the third most diagnosed cancer, it is often found at an advanced stage. Survival rates for stage I lung cancer are above 70% while survival rates for stage IV lung cancer are less than 10% at five years. Methods to detect lung cancer at an earlier stage when it can be more effectively treated have been investigated for many years. These included regular chest x-rays (CXRs) and sputum samples. Unfortunately, these testing modalities did not show any benefit. This changed in 2011 when data from the National Lung Screening Trial were published. This landmark trial showed conclusively that a low-radiation dose chest computed tomography scan (LDCT) performed annually in patients with a heavy smoking history reduced lung cancer related mortality by 20%. These results have led to a nationwide effort to increase lung cancer screening. While the number of eligible patients that are being screened on a national level remains modest, significant efforts are being made at the state and local levels to increase awareness and to improve screening. These efforts have also targeted underserved areas and are focused on reducing disparities in access.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The national rate of  lung cancer screening, approximately 3-5%, is too low and strategies which include shared decision-making and increase screening are needed. A feasibility study in one large primary care practice of telephone-based delivery of decision support via an online tool, the Decision Counseling Program© (DCP) was administered to patients eligible for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF screening guidelines. We collected data on demographics, decisional conflict, and conducted chart audits to ascertain screening. From electronic medical record data, we identified 829 age-eligible current or former smokers. Of the 297 individuals reached, 54 were eligible and 28 were recruited to the study and 20 underwent the DCP© intervention. Participants in the intervention were more likely to complete low-dose CT scans at 90 days. Current smokers were less likely to complete the DCP. Women were less likely to complete LDCT. This non-persuasive, high-quality shared decision-making intervention significantly increased lung cancer screening and was feasible in real-world clinical care. This intervention offers a promising model whereby patients can be supported in a decision, based on their values and beliefs while also supporting gains in lung cancer screening.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In this public health practice vignette, we describe an ongoing community and system intervention to identify and address social determinants of health and related needs experienced by ChristianaCare patients and the greater community during the Coronavirus pandemic. This intervention, being conducted by the ChristianaCare Office of Health Equity, in partnership with ChristianaCare's embedded research institute, the Value Institute, and the Community Outreach and Education division of the Helen F. Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, engages more than 25 community health workers, health Guides, Latinx health promoters and other social care staff as social first responders during the COVID-19 crisis. These experienced front-line social care staff screen patients and community members for social needs; make referrals to agencies and organizations for needed assistance (e.g., food, housing, financial assistance); assess people's understanding of COVID-19 and preventive measures; provide education about COVID-19; and, connect patients and community members to COVID-19 testing and any relevant clinical services. While this ongoing intervention is under evaluation, we share here some preliminary lessons-learned and discuss the critical role that social first responders can play in reducing the growing adverse social and health impacts of COVID-19 across the state of Delaware.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is cost-effective but underused. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of a mailed standard intervention (SI) and tailored navigation interventions (TNIs) to increase CRC screening use in the context of a randomized trial among primary care patients. METHODS: Participants (n = 945) were randomized either to a usual care control group (n = 317), to an SI group (n = 316), or to a TNI group (n = 312). The SI group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests irrespective of baseline preference. TNI group participants were sent instructions for scheduling a colonoscopy, a stool blood test, or both based on their test preference, as determined at baseline; then, they received a navigation telephone call. Activity cost estimation was used to determine the cost of each intervention and to compute incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Statistical uncertainty within the base case was assessed with 95% confidence intervals derived from net benefit regression analysis. The effects of uncertain parameters, such as the cost of planning, training, and involvement of those receiving "investigator salaries," were assessed with sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Program costs of the SI were $167 per participant. The average cost of the TNI was $289 per participant. CONCLUSIONS: The TNI was more effective than the SI but substantially increased the cost per additional individual screened. Decision-makers need to consider cost structure, level of planning, and training required to implement these 2 intervention strategies and their willingness to pay for additional individuals screened to determine whether a tailored navigation would be justified and feasible.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This randomized, controlled trial assessed the impact of a tailored navigation intervention versus a standard mailed intervention on colorectal cancer screening adherence and screening decision stage (SDS). METHODS: Primary care patients (n = 945) were surveyed and randomized to a Tailored Navigation Intervention (TNI) Group (n = 312), Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 316), or usual care CONTROL GROUP (n = 317). TNI Group participants were sent colonoscopy instructions and/or stool blood tests according to reported test preference, and received a navigation call. The SI Group was sent both colonoscopy instructions and stool blood tests. Multivariable analyses assessed intervention impact on adherence and change in SDS at 6 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome, screening adherence (TNI Group: 38%, SI Group: 33%, CONTROL GROUP: 12%), was higher for intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), but the two intervention groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.201). Positive SDS change (TNI Group: +45%, SI Group: +37%, and CONTROL GROUP: +23%) was significantly greater among intervention recipients than controls (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively), and the intervention group difference approached significance (P = 0.053). Secondary analyses indicate that tailored navigation boosted preferred test use, and suggest that intervention impact on adherence and SDS was attenuated by limited access to screening options. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions had significant, positive effects on outcomes compared with usual care. TNI versus SI impact had a modest positive impact on adherence and a pronounced effect on SDS. IMPACT: Mailed screening tests can boost adherence. Research is needed to determine how preference, access, and navigation affect screening outcomes.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized. Effective methods to increase screening use are needed. This study sought to determine the impact of tailored navigation on CRC screening in primary care. METHODS: The study included 154 primary care practice patients who were 50 or more years of age, were eligible for CRC screening, and had an office visit within 2 years before study initiation. Baseline telephone survey data were collected on participant sociodemographic characteristics, psychosocial factors, and screening test [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or colonoscopy] decision stage. By comparing decision stage data, we identified that test with the highest decision stage (ie, preferred screening test). Participants who preferred FOBT were sent an FOBT kit and a reminder. Those preferring colonoscopy were sent colonoscopy instructions. After this mailing, a study patient navigator made a telephone call to guide participants towards screening. Six-month end point survey and medical records data were obtained. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of screening and of change in preferred screening test decision stage. RESULTS: At end point, 63 (41%) study participants had screened. From baseline to end point, overall screening preference increased for 75 (63%) participants. Age and perceived salience and coherence (ie, screening is important and sensible) were positive, significant predictors of screening use (P = 0.02 and P = 0.05, respectively); while only age predicted change in overall screening preference (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Study participant screening use and preference increased. Age and attitudes predicted outcomes. Randomized trials are needed to determine intervention impact at the population level.

Asunto(s)