Planning a National-level Data Collection Protocol to Measure Outcomes for the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

Background: The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 30 grantees to partner with health systems with the goal of increasing screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Evaluators applied CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation to design a national level outcome evaluation for measuring changes in CRC screening rates in partner health systems. Results: The resulting evaluation design involves the collection and reporting of clinic-level CRC screening rates supplemented by various tools to support the reporting of high quality, reliable data. Conclusions: The CRCCP evaluation represents a strong design to measure the primary outcome of interest, CRC screening rates, and public health practitioners can benefit from lessons learned about stakeholder involvement, data quality, and the role of evaluators in data dissemination

Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colorectal cancer control program grantees and nongrantees, 2011-2012.

IntroductionSince 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).MethodsWe conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.ResultsCRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).ConclusionResults suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program's potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates

A qualitative analysis of smokers’ perceptions about lung cancer screening

Background In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending lung cancer screening for high risk smokers aged 55–80 years using low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. In light of these updated recommendations, there is a need to understand smokers’ knowledge of and experiences with lung cancer screening in order to inform the design of patient education and tobacco cessation programs. The purpose of this study is to describe results of a qualitative study examining smokers’ perceptions around lung cancer screening tests. Methods In 2009, prior to the release of the updated USPSTF recommendations, we conducted 12 120-min, gender-specific focus groups with 105 current smokers in Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. Focus group facilitators asked participants about their experience with three lung cancer screening tests, including CT scan, chest x-ray, and sputum cytology. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using constant comparative methods. Results Participants were 41–67 years-old, with a mean smoking history of 38.9 pack-years. Overall, 34.3% would meet the USPSTF’s current eligibility criteria for screening. Most participants were unaware of all three lung cancer screening tests. The few participants who had been screened recalled limited information about the test. Nevertheless, many participants expressed a strong desire to pursue lung cancer screening. Using the social ecological model for health promotion, we identified potential barriers to lung cancer screening at the 1) health care system level (cost of procedure, confusion around results), 2) cultural level (fatalistic beliefs, distrust of medical system), and 3) individual level (lack of knowledge, denial of risk, concerns about the procedure). Although this study was conducted prior to the updated USPSTF recommendations, these findings provide a baseline for future studies examining smokers’ perceptions of lung cancer screening. Conclusion We recommend clear and patient-friendly educational tools to improve patient understanding of screening risks and benefits and the use of best practices to help smokers quit. Further qualitative studies are needed to assess changes in smokers’ perceptions as lung cancer screening with CT scan becomes more widely used in community practice

Preventing Chronic Disease

ESSAY Suggested citation for this article: Abstract Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancerrelated mortality among U.S. adults. In 2004, treatment costs for colorectal cancer were $8.4 billion. There is substantial evidence that colorectal cancer incidence and mortality are reduced with regular screening. The natural history of this disease is also well described: most colorectal cancers develop slowly from preexisting polyps. This slow development provides an opportunity to intervene with screening tests, which can either prevent colorectal cancer through the removal of polyps or detect it at an early stage. However, much less is known about how best to implement an effective colorectal cancer screening program. Screening rates are low, and uninsured persons, low-income persons, and persons who have not visited a physician within a year are least likely to be screened. This article describes briefly this demonstration program and the process CDC used to design it and to select program sites. The multiple-methods evaluation now under way to assess the program's feasibility and describe key outcomes is also detailed. Evaluation results will be used to inform future activities related to organized screening for colorectal cancer

Meeting the mammography screening needs of underserved women: the performance of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program in 2002–2003 (United States)

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (Program) has helped to meet the mammography screening needs of underserved women. METHODS: Low-income, uninsured women aged 40–64 are eligible for free mammography screening through the Program. We used data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate the number of women eligible for services. We obtained the number of women receiving Program-funded mammograms from the Program. We then calculated the percentage of eligible women who received mammograms through the Program. RESULTS: In 2002–2003, of all U.S. women aged 40–64, approximately 4 million (8.5%) had no health insurance and had a family income below 250% of the federal poverty level, meeting Program eligibility criteria. Of these women, 528,622 (13.2%) received a Program-funded mammogram. Rates varied substantially by race and ethnicity. The percentage of eligible women screened in each state ranged from about 2% to approximately 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Program provided screening services to over a half-million low-income, uninsured women for mammography, it served a small percentage of those eligible. Given that in 2003 more than 2.3 million uninsured, low-income, women aged 40–64 did not receive recommended mammograms from either the Program or other sources, there remains a substantial need for services for this historically underserved population

Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees’ Use of Evidence-Based Interventions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for adults aged 50–75 years, yet screening rates are low, especially among the uninsured. The CDC initiated the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2014. A total of 29 grantees (states and tribal organizations) receive CRCCP funding to (1) screen uninsured adults and (2) promote CRC screening at the population level

New public management and governance collide: federal-level performance measurement in networked public management networks

The purpose of this research was to investigate the implications of networked public management on the design, implementation, and utilization of federal performance measurement systems. A multiple, instrumental case study of four public health programs funded by CDC and implemented nationally through vertical and horizontal network structures was conducted. Cross-case findings suggest that the networked implementation structures for the four federal-level, public health programs have important implications for the design of the performance measurement systems. Specifically, the performance measurement systems were affected by four consequences of the implementation networks: the political influence of collaborative stakeholders; network variability; dependencies on voluntary, horizontal network partners to achieve outputs and outcomes; and jointly produced outcomes that compromise assigning agency-specific attribution and accountability. While these four factors did not deter the use of performance measurement by any of the programs, all had important consequences for the development and subsequent design of the performance measurement systems, including limiting the choice and types of measures, level of measurement, potential uses of the measures, and resources needed to implement and support the systems.Ph.D.Committee Chair: Theodore H. Poister, Ph.D.; Committee Member: Gordon Kingsley, Ph.D.; Committee Member: John Thomas, Ph.D.; Committee Member: Judith Ottoson, Ph.D.; Committee Member: Patricia Reeves, Ph.D