Preventing Chronic Disease

ESSAY Suggested citation for this article: Abstract Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancerrelated mortality among U.S. adults. In 2004, treatment costs for colorectal cancer were $8.4 billion. There is substantial evidence that colorectal cancer incidence and mortality are reduced with regular screening. The natural history of this disease is also well described: most colorectal cancers develop slowly from preexisting polyps. This slow development provides an opportunity to intervene with screening tests, which can either prevent colorectal cancer through the removal of polyps or detect it at an early stage. However, much less is known about how best to implement an effective colorectal cancer screening program. Screening rates are low, and uninsured persons, low-income persons, and persons who have not visited a physician within a year are least likely to be screened. This article describes briefly this demonstration program and the process CDC used to design it and to select program sites. The multiple-methods evaluation now under way to assess the program's feasibility and describe key outcomes is also detailed. Evaluation results will be used to inform future activities related to organized screening for colorectal cancer

A Combined Approach to Women’s Health Is Associated With a Greater Likelihood of Repeat Mammography in a Population of Financially Disadvantaged Women

IntroductionIntegrating one or more public health programs may improve the ability of programs to achieve common goals. Expanding knowledge on how program integration occurs, how it benefits each individual program, and how it contributes to the achievement of common goals is an important area of inquiry in public health.MethodsThe National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation (WISEWOMAN) program combined data from 10 of their overlapping state or tribal programs to calculate prevalence estimates of repeat mammography at 18 months. The data were stratified by whether women attended the combined program or only the NBCCEDP. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that were thought to independently contribute to a greater likelihood of a woman receiving a repeat mammogram.ResultsWomen who participated in both programs were 1.5 to 5.1 times as likely to be rescreened, depending on program location, as women who participated only in the NBCCEDP. WISEWOMAN participants who received a follow-up WISEWOMAN screening for chronic disease risk factors within a year of their initial WISEWOMAN screening were 5 times more likely to return for a follow-up mammogram through the NBCCEDP than were WISEWOMAN participants who did not.DiscussionParticipation in both the NBCCEDP and the WISEWOMAN program is associated with a greater likelihood of a woman returning for a follow-up mammogram within 18 months of her initial examination. Collecting more in-depth information on motivational factors and on the association between receipt of multiple services and a woman’s engagement in a health program should be the subject of future research

Cost of Starting Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs: Results From Five Federally Funded Demonstration Programs

IntroductionIn 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) started a 3-year colorectal cancer screening demonstration project and funded five programs to explore the feasibility of a colorectal cancer program for the underserved U.S. population. CDC is evaluating the five programs to estimate implementation cost, identify best practices, and determine the most cost-effective approach. The objectives are to calculate start-up costs and estimate funding requirements for widespread implementation of colorectal cancer screening programs.MethodsAn instrument was developed to collect data on resource use and related costs. Costs were estimated for start-up activities, including program management, database development, creation of partnerships, public education and outreach, quality assurance and professional development, and patient support. Monetary value of in-kind contributions to start-up programs was also estimated.ResultsStart-up time ranged from 9 to 11 months for the five programs; costs ranged from $60,602 to$337,715. CDC funding and in-kind contributions were key resources for the program start-up activities. The budget category with the largest expenditure was labor, which on average accounted for 67% of start-up costs. The largest cost categories by activities were management (28%), database development (17%), administrative (17%), and quality assurance (12%). Other significant expenditures included public education and outreach (9%) and patient support (8%).ConclusionTo our knowledge, no previous reports detail the costs to begin a colorectal cancer screening program for the underserved population. Start-up costs were significant, an important consideration in planning and budgeting. In-kind contributions were also critical in overall program funding. Start-up costs varied by the infrastructure available and the unique design of programs. These findings can inform development of organized colorectal cancer programs

Choropleth Map Design for Cancer Incidence, Part 2

Choropleth maps are commonly used in cancer reports and community discussions about cancer rates. Cancer registries increasingly use geographic information system techniques. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Cancer Prevention and Control convened a Map Work Group to help guide application of geographic information system mapping techniques and to promote choropleth mapping of data from central cancer registries supported by the National Program of Cancer Registries, especially for comprehensive cancer control planning and evaluation purposes. In this 2-part series, we answer frequently asked questions about choropleth map design to display cancer incidence data. We recommend that future initiatives consider more advanced mapping, spatial analysis, and spatial statistics techniques and include usability testing with representatives of state and local programs and other cancer prevention partners