Using Quality Improvement Techniques to Increase Colon Cancer Screening

Abstract Screening has been shown to be effective and cost-effective in reducing the incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal cancer. Despite its demonstrated efficacy, colon cancer screening remains underused, with fewer than 60% of age-eligible adults reporting being up to date with recommended screening tests. Several factors account for the low rates of utilization, including patient, provider and system-related issues. Several interventions have been shown to be effective in overcoming these barriers, including the use of patient decision aids. Patient decision aids are tools designed to provide information to patients about screening options, help them consider the pros and cons of the alternatives, and assist them to reach a decision consistent with their values. The use of decision aids in clinical practice can increase screening rates by up to 14 percentage points. Mailing the decision aids to patients in advance of office visits appears to be a cost-effective means of implementation

The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Decision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented. METHODS: Adults ages 48–75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200. RESULTS: 62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48–72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: The number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered

A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of providing structured information about the benefits and harms of mammography in differing frames on women’s perceptions of screening. DESIGN: Randomized control trial. SETTING: General internal medicine academic practice. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-nine women aged 35 through 49. INTERVENTION: Women received 1 of 3 5-minute videos about the benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49. These videos differed only in the way the probabilities of potential outcomes were framed (positive, neutral, or negative). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured the change in accurate responses to questions about potential benefits and harms of mammography, and the change in the proportion of participants who perceived that the benefits of mammography were more important than the harms. Before seeing the videos, women’s knowledge about the benefits and harms of mammography was inaccurate (82% responded incorrectly to all 3 knowledge questions). After seeing the videos, the proportion that answered correctly increased by 52%, 43%, and 30% for the 3 knowledge questions, respectively, but there were no differences between video frames. At baseline, most women thought the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms (79% positive frame, 80% neutral frame, and 85% negative frame). After the videos, these proportions were similar among the 3 groups (84%, 81%, 83%, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: Women improved the accuracy of their responses to questions about the benefits and harms of mammography after seeing the videos, but this change was not affected by the framing of information. Women strongly perceived that the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms, and providing accurate information had no effect on these perceptions, regardless of how it was framed

Perspective: The Role of Numeracy in Health Care

Numeracy, the “ability to understand and use numbers in daily life” is an important but understudied component of literacy. Numeracy-related tasks are common in healthcare and include understanding nutrition information, interpreting blood sugar readings and other clinical data, adjusting medications, and understanding probability in risk communication. While literacy and numeracy are strongly correlated, we have identified many patients with adequate reading ability but poor numeracy skills. Better tools to measure numeracy and more studies to assess the unique contribution of numeracy are needed. This research can contribute to developing interventions to improve outcomes for patients with poor numeracy

Quantifying the utility of taking pills for preventing adverse health outcomes: a cross-sectional survey

ObjectivesThe utility value attributed to taking pills for prevention can have a major effect on the cost-effectiveness of interventions, but few published studies have systematically quantified this value. We sought to quantify the utility value of taking pills used for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingCentral North Carolina.Participants708 healthcare employees aged 18 years and older.Primary and secondary outcomesUtility values for taking 1 pill/day, assessed using time trade-off, modified standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods.ResultsMean age of respondents was 43 years (19–74). The majority of the respondents were female (83%) and Caucasian (80%). Most (80%) took at least 2 pills/day. Mean utility values for taking 1 pill/day using the time trade-off method were: 0.9972 (95% CI 0.9962 to 0.9980). Values derived from the standard gamble and willingness-to-pay methods were 0.9967 (0.9954 to 0.9979) and 0.9989 (95% CI 0.9986 to 0.9991), respectively. Utility values varied little across characteristics such as age, sex, race, education level or number of pills taken per day.ConclusionsThe utility value of taking pills daily in order to prevent an adverse CVD health outcome is approximately 0.997

The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: A pilot controlled trial

Abstract Background We sought to determine whether a multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing direct access to scheduling screening tests through standing orders, would be an effective and efficient means of promoting colon cancer screening in primary care practice. Methods We conducted a controlled trial comparing the proportion of intervention patients who received colon cancer screening with wait list controls at one practice site. The intervention was a mailed package that included a letter from their primary care physician, a colon cancer screening decision aid, and instructions for obtaining each screening test without an office visit so that patients could access screening tests directly. Major outcomes were screening test completion and cost per additional patient screened. Results In the intervention group, 15% (20/137) were screened versus 4% (4/100) in the control group (difference 11%; (95%; CI 3%;18% p = 0.01). The cost per additional patient screened was estimated to be $94. Conclusion A multi-modal intervention, which included mailing a patient reminder with a colon cancer decision aid to patients and system changes allowing patients direct access to schedule screening tests, increased colon cancer screening test completion in a subset of patients within a single academic practice. Although the uptake of the decision aid was low, the cost was also modest, suggesting that this method could be a viable approach to colon cancer screening

Why Wait Until Our Community Gets Cancer?: Exploring CRC Screening Barriers and Facilitators in the Spanish-Speaking Community in North Carolina

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death among Hispanics in the United States. Despite the benefits of CRC screening, many Hispanics are not being screened. Using a combined methodology of focus groups and discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, the objectives for this research were as follows: (1) to improve understanding of preferences regarding potential CRC screening program characteristics, and (2) to improve understanding of the barriers and facilitators around CRC screening with the Hispanic, immigrant community in North Carolina. Four gender-stratified focus groups were conducted and DCE surveys were administered to 38 Spanish-speaking individuals across four counties in North Carolina. In-depth content analysis was used to examine the focus group data; descriptive analyses and mean attribute importance scores for cost of screening and follow-up care, travel time, and test options were calculated from DCE data. Data analyses showed that this population has a strong interest in CRC screening but experience barrier such as lack of access to resources, cost uncertainty, and stigma. Some of these barriers are unique to their cultural experiences in the United States, such as an expressed lack of tailored CRC information. Based on the DCE, cost variables were more important than testing options or travel time. This study suggests that Hispanics may have a general awareness of and interest in CRC screening, but multiple barriers prevent them from getting screened. Special attention should be given to designing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to improve access to healthcare resources, insurance, and associated costs among Hispanics