10 research outputs found

    Adherence to Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 3 Years

    Get PDF
    We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown

    Worldwide Incidence of Colorectal Cancer, Leukemia, and Lymphoma in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

    No full text
    Background/Aims. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In addition, there may be an association between leukemia and lymphoma and IBD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the IBD literature to estimate the incidence of CRC, leukemia, and lymphoma in adult IBD patients. Methods. Studies were identified by a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Pooled incidence rates (per 100,000 person-years [py]) were calculated through use of a random effects model, unless substantial heterogeneity prevented pooling of estimates. Several stratified analyses and metaregression were performed to explore potential study heterogeneity and bias. Results. Thirty-six articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. For CRC, the pooled incidence rate in CD was 53.3/100,000 py (95% CI 46.3–60.3/100,000). The incidence of leukemia was 1.5/100,000 py (95% CI −0.06–3.0/100,000) in IBD, 0.3/100,000 py (95% CI −1.0–1.6/100,000) in CD, and 13.0/100,000 py (95% CI 5.8–20.3/100,000) in UC. For lymphoma, the pooled incidence rate in CD was 0.8/100,000 py (95% CI −0.4–2.1/100,000). Substantial heterogeneity prevented the pooling of other incidence estimates. Conclusion. The incidence of CRC, leukemia, and lymphoma in IBD is low

    Receipt of Tobacco Treatment and One-Year Smoking Cessation Rates Following Lung Cancer Screening in the Veterans Health Administration.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Implementation of effective smoking cessation interventions in lung cancer screening has been identified as a high-priority research gap, but knowledge of current practices to guide process improvement is limited due to the slow uptake of screening and dearth of data to assess cessation-related practices and outcomes under real-world conditions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cessation treatment receipt and 1-year post-screening cessation outcomes within the largest integrated healthcare system in the USA-the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design Observational study using administrative data from electronic medical records (EMR). Patients Currently smoking Veterans who received a first lung cancer screening test using low-dose CT (LDCT) between January 2014 and June 2018. Main Outcomes Tobacco treatment received within the window of 30 days before and 30 days after LDCT; 1-year quit rates based on EMR Smoking Health Factors data 6-18 months after LDCT. Key Results Of the 47,609 current smokers screened (95.3% male), 8702 (18.3%) received pharmacotherapy and/or behavioral treatment for smoking cessation; 531 (1.1%) received both. Of those receiving pharmacotherapy, only one in four received one of the most effective medications: varenicline (12.1%) or combination nicotine replacement therapy (14.3%). Overall, 5400 Veterans quit smoking-a rate of 11.3% (missing=smoking) or 13.5% (complete case analysis). Treatment receipt and cessation were associated with numerous sociodemographic, clinical, and screening-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: One-year quit rates for Veterans receiving lung cancer screening in VHA are similar to those reported in LDCT clinical trials and cohort studies (i.e., 10-17%). Only 1% of Veterans received the recommended combination of pharmacotherapy and counseling, and the most effective pharmacotherapies were not the most commonly received ones. The value of screening within VHA could be improved by addressing these treatment gaps, as well as the observed disparities in treatment receipt or cessation by race, rurality, and psychiatric conditions

    Learning from national implementation of the Veterans Affairs Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program for improving access to care: protocol for a six year evaluation

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background The Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Resource Hub (CRH) program aims to improve patient access to care by implementing time-limited, regionally based primary or mental health staffing support to cover local staffing vacancies. VA’s Office of Primary Care (OPC) designed CRH to support more than 1000 geographically disparate VA outpatient sites, many of which are in rural areas, by providing virtual contingency clinical staffing for sites experiencing primary care and mental health staffing deficits. The subsequently funded CRH evaluation, carried out by the VA Primary Care Analytics Team (PCAT), partnered with CRH program leaders and evaluation stakeholders to develop a protocol for a six-year CRH evaluation. The objectives for developing the CRH evaluation protocol were to prospectively: 1) identify the outcomes CRH aimed to achieve, and the key program elements designed to achieve them; 2) specify evaluation designs and data collection approaches for assessing CRH progress and success; and 3) guide the activities of five geographically dispersed evaluation teams. Methods The protocol documents a multi-method CRH program evaluation design with qualitative and quantitative elements. The evaluation’s overall goal is to assess CRH’s return on investment to the VA and Veterans at six years through synthesis of findings on program effectiveness. The evaluation includes both observational and quasi-experimental elements reflecting impacts at the national, regional, outpatient site, and patient levels. The protocol is based on program evaluation theory, implementation science frameworks, literature on contingency staffing, and iterative review and revision by both research and clinical operations partners. Discussion Health systems increasingly seek to use data to guide management and decision-making for newly implemented clinical programs and policies. Approaches for planning evaluations to accomplish this goal, however, are not well-established. By publishing the protocol, we aim to increase the validity and usefulness of subsequent evaluation findings. We also aim to provide an example of a program evaluation protocol developed within a learning health systems partnership

    Adherence to Competing Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 3 Years

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: We have shown that, in a randomized trial comparing adherence to different colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies, participants assigned to either fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or given a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy had significantly higher adherence than those assigned to colonoscopy during the first year. However, how adherence to screening changes over time is unknown. METHODS: In this trial, 997 participants were cluster randomized to one of the three screening strategies: (i) FOBT, (ii) colonoscopy, or (iii) a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy. Research assistants helped participants to complete testing only in the first year. Adherence to screening was defined as completion of three FOBT cards in each of 3 years after enrollment or completion of colonoscopy within the first year of enrollment. The primary outcome was adherence to assigned strategy over 3 years. Additional outcomes included identification of sociodemographic factors associated with adherence. RESULTS: Participants assigned to annual FOBT completed screening at a significantly lower rate over 3 years (14%) than those assigned to colonoscopy (38%, P<0.001) or choice (42%, P<0.001); however, completion of any screening test fell precipitously, indicating the strong effect of patient navigation. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, being randomized to the choice or colonoscopy group, Chinese language, homosexuality, being married/partnered, and having a non-nurse practitioner primary care provider were independently associated with greater adherence to screening (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In a 3-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing competing CRC screening strategies, participants offered a choice between FOBT and colonoscopy continued to have relatively high adherence, whereas adherence in the FOBT group fell significantly below that of the choice and colonoscopy groups. Patient navigation is crucial to achieving adherence to CRC screening, and FOBT is especially vulnerable because of the need for annual testing
    corecore