Salud es Vida: Development of a Cervical Cancer Education Curriculum for Promotora Outreach With Latina Farmworkers in Rural Southern Georgia

Methods: A systematic review was conducted to synthesize evidence from all prospective controlled studies on effectiveness of CHW programs in improving screening mammography rates. Studies reported in English and conducted in the United States were included if they: (i) evaluated a CHW intervention designed to increase screening mammography rates in women 40 years of age or older without a history of breast cancer; (ii) were a randomized controlled trial (RCT), case-controlled study, or quasi-experimental study; and (iii) evaluated a CHW intervention outside of a hospital setting. Results: Participation in a CHW intervention was associated with a statistically significant increase in receipt of screening mammography [risk ratio (RR): 1.06 (favoring intervention); 95% CI: 1.02-1.11, P = 0.003]. The effect remained when pooled data from only RCTs were included in meta-analysis (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.03-1.12, P = 0.0005) but was not present using pooled data from only quasi-experimental studies (RR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.89-1.18, P = 0.71). In RCTs, participants recruited from medical settings (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.09-1.82, P = 0.008), programs conducted in urban settings (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.39, P = 0.001), and programs where CHWs were matched to intervention participants on race or ethnicity (RR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.29-1.93, P = 0.0001) showed stronger effects on increasing mammography screening rates. Conclusions: CHW interventions are effective for increasing screening mammography in certain settings and populations. Impact: CHW interventions are especially associated with improvements in rate of screening mammography in medical settings, urban settings, and in participants who are racially or ethnically concordant with the CHW

Missing the Target for Routine Human Papillomavirus Vaccination: Consistent and Strong Physician Recommendations Are Lacking for 11- to 12-Year-Old Males

Rates of routine human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination of adolescent males in the U.S. are low. Leading health organizations advocate consistent and strong physician recommendations to improve HPV vaccine dissemination. This study describes the prevalence and correlates of consistent and strong physician recommendations for HPV vaccination of adolescent males

Florida physicians' reported use of AFIX-based strategies for human papillomavirus vaccination

HPV vaccination rates in Florida are low. To increase rates, the CDC recommends clinics adhere to components of their evidence-based quality improvement program, AFIX (Assessment, Feedback, Incentives, and eXchange of information). We explored factors associated with engaging in HPV-specific AFIX-related activities. In 2016, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 770 pediatric and family medicine physicians in Florida and assessed vaccination practices, clinic characteristics, and HPV-related knowledge. Data were analyzed in 2017. The primary outcome was whether physicians' clinics engaged in ≥1 AFIX activity. We stratified by physician specialty and developed multivariable models using a backward selection approach. Of the participants in the analytic sample (n = 340), 52% were male, 60% were White of any ethnicity, and 55% were non-Hispanic. Pediatricians and family medicine physicians differed on: years practicing medicine (p < 0.001), HPV-related knowledge (p < 0.001), and VFC provider status (p < 0.001), among others. Only 39% of physicians reported engaging in ≥1 AFIX activity. In the stratified multivariable model for pediatricians, AFIX activity was significantly associated with HPV-related knowledge (aOR = 1.33;95%CI = 1.08–1.63) and provider use of vaccine reminder prompts (aOR = 3.61;95%CI = 1.02–12.77). For family medicine physicians, HPV-related knowledge was significant (aOR = 1.57;95%CI = 1.20–2.05) as was majority race of patient population (non-Hispanic White vs. Other: aOR = 3.02;95%CI = 1.08–8.43), daily patient load (<20 vs. 20–24: aOR = 9.05;95%CI = 2.72–30.10), and vaccine administration to male patients (aOR = 2.98;95%CI = 1.11–8.02). Fewer than half of Florida pediatric and family medicine physicians engaged in any AFIX activities. Future interventions to increase AFIX engagement should focus on implementing and evaluating AFIX activities in groups identified as having low engagement in AFIX activities

Patient factors associated with documented provision of JNC 7-recommended hypertension care at an academic family medicine office.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient factors associated with the provision of hypertension care as recommended by JNC 7. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review (n = 150) to compare documented provision of items recommended by JNC 7 with various patient factors, using a 15-point scoring tool (0% to 100%). RESULTS: The overall documentation of JNC guideline-recommended care was 78.3%. There was a significant effect of marital status; married patients received more guideline-recommended care than unmarried patients (80.4% vs 74.4%; P = .02). Men received more guideline-recommended care than women (80.7% vs 76.4%; P = .02). Multivariate analysis revealed that Medicaid patients had 7.1% lower rates of guideline-recommended care than patients with other insurance (P = .05). There was no significant difference in guideline-recommended care based on race/ethnicity; however, racial/ethnic disparities were identified for certain individual standards. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension care in 2013 at an academic family medicine center was, for the most part, in agreement with guidelines; however, provision of some items varied based on sex, marital status, and insurance. Awareness of these predictors may help improve the implementation of guidelines, particularly relevant given the recent release of JNC 8

Long-term Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Cancer Screening Among Attendees of Community Health Centers

PURPOSE We assessed whether increased cancer screening rates that were observed with Cancer Screening Office Systems (Cancer SOS) could be maintained at 24 months’ follow-up, a period in which clinics were expected to be largely self-sufficient in maintaining the intervention. METHODS Eight primary care clinics serving disadvantaged populations in Hills-borough County, Fla, agreed to take part in a cluster-randomized experimental trial. Charts of independent samples of established patients aged 50 to 75 years were abstracted, with data collected at baseline (n = 1,196) and at 24 months’ follow-up (n = 1,296). Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, mammography, and fecal occult blood testing were assessed. RESULTS At 24 months of follow-up, intervention patients had received a greater number of cancer screening tests (mean 1.17 tests vs 0.94 tests, t test = 4.42, P <.0001). In multivariate analysis that controlled for baseline screening rates, secular trends, and other patient and clinic characteristics, the intervention increased the odds of mammograms slightly (odds ratio [OR]) = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.55; P = .03) but had no effect on fecal occult blood tests (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92–1.48; P =0.19) or Pap smears (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.0.68–1.15; P = .34). CONCLUSIONS The Cancer SOS intervention had persistent, although modest, effects on screening at 24 months’ follow-up, an effect that had clearly diminished from results reported at 12 months’ follow-up. Further study is needed to develop successful intervention strategies that are either self-sustaining or that are able to produce long-term changes in screening behavior

Electronic medical record‐verified hepatitis C virus screening in a large health system

Abstract Background Baby boomers are at increased risk for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and related cancer; therefore, one‐time HCV screening is recommended. Methods To assess prevalence of, and factors associated with providers ordering HCV screening, we examined a retrospective cohort of electronic medical records for patient visits from 01 August 2015 until 31 July 2017 in a large health system. HCV screening ordered was examined by patient age, gender, race/ethnicity, provider specialty, and number of clinical visits, stratified by birth cohort: born ≤1945, 1945‐1965 (baby boomers), 1966‐1985, and ≥1985. Multivariable regression identified factors independently associated with HCV screening ordered among average risk baby boomers. Results A total of 65 114 patients ages ≥18 years were evaluated. Among baby boomers HCV screening test order increased threefold between the two study years (4.0%‐12.9%). Odds of screening test ordered were significantly higher for non‐Hispanic Blacks (multivariable adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.36; 95% CI = 1.19‐1.55), males (aOR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.33‐1.57), and having a clinic visit with a primary care provider alone or with specialty care (aOR = 3.25‐4.16). Medicare (aOR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.80‐0.99), Medicaid (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80‐0.99), and an unknown provider type (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.08‐0.33), were associated with lower odds of screening tests ordered. Conclusions While the proportion of baby boomers with an HCV screening test ordered increased during the study, the rate of screening remains far below national goals. Data from this study indicate that providers are not ordering HCV screening universally for all of their baby boomer patients. Continued efforts to increase HCV screening are needed to reduce the incidence of HCV‐related morbidity and mortality

Hepatitis C virus screening trends: A 2016 update of the National Health Interview Survey

•CDC recommends one-time HCV screening for baby boomers but screening rates are low.•Previous research shows screening was not increasing over time among baby boomers.•This study demonstrated continued low HCV screening prevalence among baby boomers.•Future research should focus on disseminating successful interventions to baby boomers.•Interventions should focus on increasing screening in the primary care setting. 50% of liver cancer is caused by hepatitis C virus (HCV). Baby boomers are at increased risk and are recommended for one-time HCV screening. However, <13% of baby boomers were screened in 2015. We are updating a previous study using 2013–2015 NHIS data to examine HCV screening prevalence by birth cohort, with 2016 data. We used logistic regression to evaluate whether HCV screening prevalence changed over time, stratified by birth cohort. The sample consisted of 132,742 participants from 2013–2016. Screening increased in baby boomers from 11.9 to 14.1%. Odds of HCV screening for baby boomers was significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, and other variables and increased significantly with each subsequent year (aOR = 1.21, aOR = 1.33, aOR = 1.42, consecutively). While HCV screening is increasing over time, there is still room for improvement and future interventions should focus on increasing HCV screening among groups demonstrating significantly lower screening prevalence

The primary care provider (PCP)‐cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed‐methods meta‐synthesis

Although they are critical to models of coordinated care, the relationship and communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists throughout the cancer continuum are poorly understood. By using predefined search terms, the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature in 3 databases to examine the relationship and communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. Among 301 articles identified, 35 met all inclusion criteria and were reviewed in‐depth. Findings from qualitative, quantitative, and disaggregated mixed‐methods studies were integrated using meta‐synthesis. Six themes were identified and incorporated into a preliminary conceptual model of the PCP‐cancer specialist relationship: 1) poor and delayed communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, 2) cancer specialists’ endorsement of a specialist‐based model of care, 3) PCPs’ belief that they play an important role in the cancer continuum, 4) PCPs’ willingness to participate in the cancer continuum, 5) cancer specialists’ and PCPs’ uncertainty regarding the PCP’s oncology knowledge/experience, and 6) discrepancies between PCPs and cancer specialists regarding roles. These data indicate a pervasive need for improved communication, delineation, and coordination of responsibilities between PCPs and cancer specialists. Future interventions aimed at these deficiencies may improve patient and physician satisfaction and cancer care coordination. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:156–169. © 2016 American Cancer Society.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136438/1/caac21385_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/136438/2/caac21385.pd