Study Protocol: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient Navigation-Activation to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities

Abstract Background Cancer health disparities affecting low-income and minority patients are well documented. Root-causes are multifactorial, including diagnostic and treatment delays, social and financial barriers, and poor communication. Patient navigation and communication coaching (activation) are potential interventions to address disparities in cancer treatment. The purpose of this clinical trial is to test the effectiveness of an intervention combining patient navigation and activation to improve cancer treatment. Methods/Design The Rochester Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) is a National Cancer Institute-sponsored, patient-level randomized trial (RCT) of patient navigation and activation, targeting newly-diagnosed breast and colorectal cancer patients in Rochester, NY. The goal of the program is to decrease cancer health disparities by addressing barriers to receipt of cancer care and promoting patient self-efficacy. The intervention uses trained, paraprofessional patient navigators recruited from the target community, and a detailed training and supervisory program. Recruited patients are randomly assigned to receive either usual care (except for baseline and follow-up questionnaires and interviews) or intervention. The intervention patients receive tailored assistance from their patient navigators, including phone calls, in-person meetings, and behind-the-scenes coordination of care. A total of 344 patients have been recruited. Outcomes measured at three month intervals include timeliness of care, patient adherence, patient satisfaction, quality of life, self-efficacy, health literacy, and cancer knowledge. Discussion This unique intervention combining patient navigation and patient activation is designed to address the multifactorial problem of cancer health disparities. If successful, this study will affect the design and implementation of patient navigation programs. Trials Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00496678http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78254/1/1471-2407-10-551.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78254/2/1471-2407-10-551.pdfPeer Reviewe

Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice

Abstract Background Most randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to promote cancer screening, particularly those targeting poor and minority patients, enroll selected patients. Relatively little is known about the benefits of these interventions among unselected patients. Methods/Design "Get Screened" is an American Cancer Society-sponsored randomized controlled trial designed to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a primary care practice serving low-income patients. Eligible patients who are past due for mammography or colorectal cancer screening are entered into a tracking registry and randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention. This 6-month intervention is multimodal, involving patient prompts, clinician prompts, and outreach. At the time of the patient visit, eligible patients receive a low-literacy patient education tool. At the same time, clinicians receive a prompt to remind them to order the test and, when appropriate, a tool designed to simplify colorectal cancer screening decision-making. Patient outreach consists of personalized letters, automated telephone reminders, assistance with scheduling, and linkage of uninsured patients to the local National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Interventions are repeated for patients who fail to respond to early interventions. We will compare rates of screening between randomized groups, as well as planned secondary analyses of minority patients and uninsured patients. Data from the pilot phase show that this multimodal intervention triples rates of cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio 3.63; 95% CI 2.35 - 5.61). Discussion This study protocol is designed to assess a multimodal approach to promotion of breast and colorectal cancer screening among underserved patients. We hypothesize that a multimodal approach will significantly improve cancer screening rates. The trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT00818857http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/1/1472-6963-10-280.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/2/1472-6963-10-280.pdfPeer Reviewe

Primary Language, Income and the Intensification of Anti-glycemic Medications in Managed Care: the (TRIAD) Study

BACKGROUND Patients who speak Spanish and/or have low socioeconomic status are at greater risk of suboptimal glycemic control. Inadequate intensification of anti-glycemic medications may partially explain this disparity. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations between primary language, income, and medication intensification. DESIGN Cohort study with 18-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine patients with Type 2 diabetes who were not using insulin enrolled in the Translating Research into Action for Diabetes Study (TRIAD), a study of diabetes care in managed care. MEASUREMENTS Using administrative pharmacy data, we compared the odds of medication intensification for patients with baseline A1c ≥ 8%, by primary language and annual income. Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, Charlson score, diabetes duration, baseline A1c, type of diabetes treatment, and health plan. RESULTS Overall, 42.4% of patients were taking intensified regimens at the time of follow-up. We found no difference in the odds of intensification for English speakers versus Spanish speakers. However, compared to patients with incomes 75,000 (OR 2.22, 1.53-3.24) had increased odds of intensification. This latter pattern did not differ statistically by race. CONCLUSIONS Low-income patients were less likely to receive medication intensification compared to higher-income patients, but primary language (Spanish vs. English) was not associated with differences in intensification in a managed care setting. Future studies are needed to explain the reduced rate of intensification among low income patients in managed care

Do changes in traditional coronary heart disease risk factors over time explain the association between socio-economic status and coronary heart disease?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Socioeconomic status (SES) predicts coronary heart disease independently of the traditional risk factors included in the Framingham risk score. However, it is unknown whether <it>changes </it>in Framingham risk score variables over time explain the association between SES and coronary heart disease. We examined this question given its relevance to risk assessment in clinical decision making.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study data (initiated in 1987 with 10-years follow-up of 15,495 adults aged 45-64 years in four Southern and Mid-Western communities) were used. SES was assessed at baseline, dichotomized as low SES (defined as low education and/or low income) or not. The time dependent variables - smoking, total and high density lipoprotein cholesterol, systolic blood pressure and use of blood pressure lowering medication - were assessed every three years. Ten-year incidence of coronary heart disease was based on EKG and cardiac enzyme criteria, or adjudicated death certificate data. Cox survival analyses examined the contribution of SES to heart disease risk independent of baseline Framingham risk score, without and with further adjustment for the time dependent variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Adjusting for baseline Framingham risk score, low SES was associated with an increased coronary heart disease risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.53; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.27 to1.85). After further adjustment for the time dependent variables, the SES effect remained significant (HR = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19 to1.74).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using Framingham Risk Score alone under estimated the coronary heart disease risk in low SES persons. This bias was not eliminated by subsequent changes in Framingham risk score variables.</p

Cholesterol treatment with statins: Who is left out and who makes it to goal?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Whether patient socio-demographic characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income, and education) are independently associated with failure to receive indicated statin therapy and/or to achieve low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) therapy goals are not known. We examined socio-demographic factors associated with a) eligibility for statin therapy among those not on statins, and b) achievement of statin therapy goals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults (21-79 years) participating in the United States (US) National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1999-2006 were studied. Statin eligibility and achievement of target LDL-C was assessed using the US Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP III) on Treatment of High Cholesterol guidelines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among 6,043 participants not taking statins, 10.4% were eligible. Adjusted predictors of statin eligibility among statin non-users were being older, male, poorer, and less educated. Hispanics were less likely to be eligible but not using statins, an effect that became non-significant with adjustment for language usually spoken at home. Among 537 persons taking statins, 81% were at LDL-C goal. Adjusted predictors of goal failure among statin users were being male and poorer. These risks were not attenuated by adjustment for healthcare access or utilization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among person's not taking statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are more likely to be eligible and among those on statins, the socio-economically disadvantaged are less likely to achieve statin treatment goals. Further study is needed to identify specific amenable patient and/or physician factors that contribute to these disparities.</p

Public health in action: effective school health needs renewed international attention

School health programmes as a platform to deliver high-impact health interventions are currently underrated by decision makers and do not get adequate attention from the international public health community. We describe the award-winning Fit for School Approach from the Philippines as an example of a large-scale, integrated, cost-effective and evidence-based programme that bridges the gap between sectors, and between evidence and practice. In view of the challenges to achieve the health and education related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many countries, intensified efforts are required. We present the Fit for School Action Framework as a realistic and tested approach that helps to make schools places of public health for children and wider communities

Disparities in preventive procedures: comparisons of self-report and Medicare claims data

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities are assessed using either self-report or claims data. We compared these two data sources and examined contributors to discrepancies in estimates of disparities. METHODS: We analyzed self-report and matching claims data from Medicare Beneficiaries 65 and older who participated in the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, 1999–2002. Six preventive procedures were included: PSA testing, influenza vaccination, Pap smear testing, cholesterol testing, mammography, and colorectal cancer testing. We examined predictors of self-reports in the absence of claims and claims in the absence of self-reports. RESULTS: With the exception of PSA testing, racial/ethnic disparities in preventive procedures are generally larger when using Medicare claims than when using patients' self-report. Analyses adjusting for age, gender, income, educational level, health status, proxy response and supplemental insurance showed that minorities were more likely to self-report preventive procedures in the absence of claims. Adjusted odds ratios ranged from 1.07 (95% CI: 0.88 – 1.30) for PSA testing to 1.83 (95% CI: 1.46 – 2.30) for Pap smear testing. Rates of claims in the absence of self-report were low. Minorities were more likely to have PSA test claims in the absence of self-reports (1.55 95% CI: 1.17 – 2.06), but were less likely to have influenza vaccination claims in the absence of self-reports (0.69 95% CI: 0.51 – 0.93). CONCLUSION: These findings are consistent with either racial/ethnic reporting biases in receipt of preventive procedures or less efficient Medicare billing among providers with large minority practices