Factors influencing variation in physician adenoma detection rates: a theory-based approach for performance improvement

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interventions to improve physician adenoma detection rates for colonoscopy have generally not been successful, and there are little data on the factors contributing to variation that may be appropriate targets for intervention. We sought to identify factors that may influence variation in detection rates by using theory-based tools for understanding behavior. METHODS: We separately studied gastroenterologists and endoscopy nurses at 3 Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers to identify potentially modifiable factors relevant to physician adenoma detection rate variability by using structured group interviews (focus groups) and theory-based tools for understanding behavior and eliciting behavior change: the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation behavior model; the Theoretical Domains Framework; and the Behavior Change Wheel. RESULTS: Nine factors potentially associated with adenoma detection rate variability were identified, including 6 related to capability (uncertainty about which types of polyps to remove, style of endoscopy team leadership, compromised ability to focus during an examination due to distractions, examination technique during withdrawal, difficulty detecting certain types of adenomas, and examiner fatigue and pain), 2 related to opportunity (perceived pressure due to the number of examinations expected per shift and social pressure to finish examinations before scheduled breaks or the end of a shift), and 1 related to motivation (valuing a meticulous examination as the top priority). Examples of potential intervention strategies are provided. CONCLUSIONS: By using theory-based tools, this study identified several novel and potentially modifiable factors relating to capability, opportunity, and motivation that may contribute to adenoma detection rate variability and be appropriate targets for future intervention trials

Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps

Precision medicine, an emerging approach for disease treatment that takes into account individual variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle, is under consideration for preventive interventions, including cancer screening. On September 29, 2015, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a symposium entitled “Precision Cancer Screening in the General Population: Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps”. The goal was two-fold: to share current information on the evidence, practices, and challenges surrounding precision screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, and to allow for in-depth discussion among experts in relevant fields regarding how epidemiology and other population sciences can be used to generate evidence to inform precision screening strategies. Attendees concluded that the strength of evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of precision strategies varies by cancer site, that no one research strategy or methodology would be able or appropriate to address the many knowledge gaps in precision screening, and that issues surrounding implementation must be researched as well. Additional discussion needs to occur to identify the high priority research areas in precision cancer screening for pertinent organs and to gather the necessary evidence to determine whether further implementation of precision cancer screening strategies in the general population would be feasible and beneficial

Chapter 10: Deciding Whether to Complement a Systematic Review of Medical Tests with Decision Modeling

Limited by what is reported in the literature, most systematic reviews of medical tests focus on “test accuracy” (or better, test performance), rather than on the impact of testing on patient outcomes. The link between testing, test results and patient outcomes is typically complex: even when testing has high accuracy, there is no guarantee that physicians will act according to test results, that patients will follow their orders, or that the intervention will yield a beneficial endpoint. Therefore, test performance is typically not sufficient for assessing the usefulness of medical tests. Modeling (in the form of decision or economic analysis) is a natural framework for linking test performance data to clinical outcomes. We propose that (some) modeling should be considered to facilitate the interpretation of summary test performance measures by connecting testing and patient outcomes. We discuss a simple algorithm for helping systematic reviewers think through this possibility, and illustrate it by means of an example

Self-reported colorectal cancer screening of Medicare beneficiaries in family medicine vs. internal medicine practices in the United States: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The benefit of screening for decreasing the risk of death from colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown, yet many patients in primary care are still not undergoing screening according to guidelines. There are known variations in delivery of preventive health care services among primary care physicians. This study compared self-reported CRC screening rates and patient awareness of the need for CRC screening of patients receiving care from family medicine (FPs) vs. internal medicine (internists) physicians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized beneficiaries who received medical care from FPs or internists in 2006 (using Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey). The main outcome was the percentage of patients screened in 2007. We also examined the percentage of patients offered screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients of FPs, compared to those of internists, were less likely to have received an FOBT kit or undergone home FOBT, even after accounting for patients' characteristics. Compared to internists, FPs' patients were more likely to have heard of colonoscopy, but were less likely to receive a screening colonoscopy recommendation (18% vs. 27%), or undergo a colonoscopy (43% vs. 46%, adjusted odds ratios [AOR], 95% confidence interval [CI]-- 0.65, 0.51-0.81) or any CRC screening (52% vs. 60%, AOR, CI--0.80, 0.68-0.94). Among subgroups examined, higher income beneficiaries receiving care from internists had the highest screening rate (68%), while disabled beneficiaries receiving care from FPs had the lowest screening rate (34%).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients cared for by FPs had a lower rate of screening compared to those cared for by internists, despite equal or higher levels of awareness; a difference that remained statistically significant after accounting for socioeconomic status and access to healthcare. Both groups of patients remained below the national goal of 70 percent.</p

Evaluating risk factor assumptions: a simulation-based approach

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Microsimulation models are an important tool for estimating the comparative effectiveness of interventions through prediction of individual-level disease outcomes for a hypothetical population. To estimate the effectiveness of interventions targeted toward high risk groups, the mechanism by which risk factors influence the natural history of disease must be specified. We propose a method for evaluating these risk factor assumptions as part of model-building.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used simulation studies to examine the impact of risk factor assumptions on the relative rate (RR) of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality for a cohort with a risk factor compared to a cohort without the risk factor using an extension of the CRC-SPIN model for colorectal cancer. We also compared the impact of changing age at initiation of screening colonoscopy for different risk mechanisms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Across CRC-specific risk factor mechanisms, the RR of CRC incidence and mortality decreased (towards one) with increasing age. The rate of change in RRs across age groups depended on both the risk factor mechanism and the strength of the risk factor effect. Increased non-CRC mortality attenuated the effect of CRC-specific risk factors on the RR of CRC when both were present. For each risk factor mechanism, earlier initiation of screening resulted in more life years gained, though the magnitude of life years gained varied across risk mechanisms.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Simulation studies can provide insight into both the effect of risk factor assumptions on model predictions and the type of data needed to calibrate risk factor models.</p

Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status and Use of Colonoscopy in an Insured Population – A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Low-socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with a higher colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Screening with colonoscopy, the most commonly used test in the US, has been shown to reduce the risk of death from CRC. This study examined if, among insured persons receiving care in integrated healthcare delivery systems, differences exist in colonoscopy use according to neighborhood SES. Methods We assembled a retrospective cohort of 100,566 men and women, 50–74 years old, who had been enrolled in one of three US health plans for $\geq$ 1 year on January 1, 2000. Subjects were followed until the date of first colonoscopy, date of disenrollment from the health plan, or December 31, 2007, whichever occurred first. We obtained data on colonoscopy use from administrative records. We defined screening colonoscopy as an examination that was not preceded by gastrointestinal conditions in the prior 6-month period. Neighborhood SES was measured using the percentage of households in each subject's census-tract with an income below 1999 federal poverty levels based on 2000 US census data. Analyses, adjusted for demographics and comorbidity index, were performed using Weibull regression models. Results: The average age of the cohort was 60 years and 52.7% were female. During 449,738 person-years of follow-up, fewer subjects in the lowest SES quartile (Q1) compared to the highest quartile (Q4) had any colonoscopy (26.7% vs. 37.1%) or a screening colonoscopy (7.6% vs. 13.3%). In regression analyses, compared to Q4, subjects in Q1 were 16% (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80–0.88) less likely to undergo any colonoscopy and 30%(adjusted HR = 0.70, CI: 0.65–0.75) less likely to undergo a screening colonoscopy. Conclusion: People in lower-SES neighborhoods are less likely to undergo a colonoscopy, even among insured subjects receiving care in integrated healthcare systems. Removing health insurance barriers alone is unlikely to eliminate disparities in colonoscopy use

Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: Four rounds of faecal immunochemical test-based screening

Background:The effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programs is highly dependent on consistent participation over multiple rounds. We evaluated adherence to FIT screening over four rounds and aimed to identify determinants of participation behaviour.Methods:A total of 23 339 randomly selected asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited for biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening between 2006 and 2014. All were invited for every consecutive round, except for those who had moved out of the area, passed the upper age limit, or had tested positive in a previous screening round. A reminder letter was sent to non-responders. We calculated participation rates per round, response rates to a reminder letter, and differences in participation between subgroups defined by age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES).Results:Over the four rounds, participation rates increased significantly, from 60% (95% CI 60-61), 60% (95% CI 59-60), 62% (95% CI 61-63) to 63% (95% CI 62-64; P for trend&lt;0.001) with significantly higher participation rates in women in all rounds (P&lt;0.001). Of the 17 312 invitees eligible for at least two rounds of FIT screening, 12 455 (72%) participated at least once, whereas 4857 (28%) never participated; 8271 (48%) attended all rounds when eligible. Consistent participation was associated with older age, female sex, and higher SES. Offering a reminder letter after the initial invite in the first round increased uptake with 12%; in subsequent screening rounds this resulted in an additional uptake of up to 10%.Conclusions:In four rounds of a pilot biennial FIT-screening program, we observed a consistently high and increasing participation rate, whereas sending reminders remain effective. The substantial proportion of inconsistent participants suggests the existence of incidental barriers to participation, which, if possible, should be identified and removed