Amy DeGroff

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program: partnering to increase population level screening

w t s a t e h s o P v Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, killing more nonsmokers than any other cancer.1 In 2006, more than 139,000 people were diagnosed with CRC and more than 53,000 died of the disease.2 Screening can effectively decrease CRC incidence and mortality in 2 ways: first, unlike most cancers, screening offers the opportunity to prevent cancer by removing premalignant polyps; second, screening can detect CRC early when treatment is more effective.3,4 If CRC is diagnosed at early stages, the 5-year survival rate is more than 88%.5 In a modeling study to assess deaths revented through increased use of clinical preventive ervices, Farley et al6 estimated that 1900 deaths could be revented for every 10% increase in CRC screening with a olonoscopy. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends RC screening for average-risk individuals beginning at ge 50 by using annual high-sensitivity fecal occult blood esting, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, or colonoscopy evry 10 years.7 Data from the Centers for Disease Control nd Prevention (CDC) suggest that only 62.9% of Amerians aged 50 to 75 years are up to date with CRC screenng, with more than 22 million adults estimated to be

Mammography Adherence: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND Regular mammography accounts for half of the recent declines in breast cancer mortality. Mammography use declined significantly in 2008. Given the success of regular breast cancer screening, understanding why mammography use decreased is important. We undertook a focus group study to explore reasons women who were previously adherent with regular mammography no longer were screened. METHODS We conducted 20 focus groups with white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, Japanese American, and American Indian/Alaska Native women, and segmented the groups by age, race/ethnicity, and health insurance status. A conceptual framework, based on existing research, informed the development of the focus group guide. Discussion topics included previous mammography experiences, perceptions of personal breast cancer risk, barriers to mammography, and risks and benefits associated with undergoing mammography. Atlas.ti was used to facilitate data analysis. RESULTS All focus groups (n=128 women) were completed in 2009 in five cities across the United States. Half of the groups were held with white non-Hispanic women and the remainder with other racial/ethnic groups. Major barriers to routine mammography included (1) concerns about test efficacy, (2) personal concerns about the procedure, (3) access to screening services, (4) psychosocial issues, and (5) cultural factors. For uninsured women, lack of health insurance was the primary barrier to mammography. CONCLUSIONS Multilevel interventions at the health-care provider and system levels are needed to address barriers women experience to undergoing regular mammography screening. Ultimately, breast cancer screening with mammography is an individual behavior; therefore, individual behavioral change strategies will continue to be needed.

Challenges and strategies in applying performance measurement to federal public health programs

Performance measurement is widely accepted in public health as an important management tool supporting program improvement and accountability. However, several challenges impede developing and implementing performance measurement systems at the federal level, including the complexity of public health problems that reflect multiple determinants and involve outcomes that may take years to achieve, the decentralized and networked nature of public health program implementation, and the lack of reliable and consistent data sources and other issues related to measurement. All three of these challenges hinder the ability to attribute program results to specific public health program efforts. The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues in detail and offer potential solutions that support the development of robust and practical performance measures to meet the needs for program improvement and accountability. Adapting performance measurement to public health programs is both an evolving science and art. Through the strategies presented here, appropriate systems can be developed and monitored to support the production of meaningful data that will inform effective decision making at multiple levels.

Seeking Best Practices: A Conceptual Framework for Planning and Improving Evidence-Based Practices

How can we encourage ongoing development, refinement, and evaluation of practices to identify and build an evidence base for best practices? On the basis of a review of the literature and expert input, we worked iteratively to create a framework with 2 interrelated components. The first — public health impact — consists of 5 elements: effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability. The second — quality of evidence — consists of 4 levels, ranging from weak to rigorous. At the intersection of public health impact and quality of evidence, a continuum of evidence-based practice emerges, representing the ongoing development of knowledge across 4 stages: emerging, promising, leading, and best. This conceptual framework brings together important aspects of impact and quality to provide a common lexicon and criteria for assessing and strengthening public health practice. We hope this work will invite and advance dialogue among public health practitioners and decision makers to build and strengthen a diverse evidence base for public health programs and strategies.

Costs of planning and implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large‐scale colorectal cancer screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of the current report provide a detailed description of the total program costs (clinical and nonclinical) incurred during both the start‐up and service delivery (screening) phases of the 4‐year program.

Key considerations in designing a patient navigation program for colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality among those cancers affecting both men and women. Screening is known to reduce mortality by detecting cancer early and through colonoscopy, removing precancerous polyps. Only 58.6% of adults are currently up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening by any method. Patient navigation shows promise in increasing adherence to colorectal cancer screening and reducing health disparities; however, it is a complex intervention that is operationalized differently across institutions. This article describes 10 key considerations in designing a patient navigation intervention for colorectal cancer screening based on a literature review and environmental scan. Factors include (1) identifying a theoretical framework and setting program goals, (2) specifying community characteristics, (3) establishing the point(s) of intervention within the cancer continuum, (4) determining the setting in which navigation services are provided, (5) identifying the range of services offered and patient navigator responsibilities, (6) determining the background and qualifications of navigators, (7) selecting the method of communications between patients and navigators, (8) designing the navigator training, (9) defining oversight and supervision for the navigators, and (10) evaluating patient navigation. Public health practitioners can benefit from the practical perspective offered here for designing patient navigation programs.

Using data to effectively manage a national screening program

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is implemented through cooperative agreements with state health departments, US territories, and tribal health organizations (grantees). Grantees typically contract with clinicians and other providers to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services. As required by the CDC, grantees report biannually a subset of patient and clinical level program data known as the Minimum Data Elements. Rigorous processes are in place to ensure the completeness and quality of program data collection. In this article, the authors describe the NBCCEDP data‐collection processes and data management system and discusses how data are used for 1) program monitoring and improvement, 2) evaluation and research, and 3) policy development and analysis. They also provide 2 examples of how grantees use data to improve their performance. Cancer 2014;120(16 suppl):2575‐83.

Recruiting patients into the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: strategies and challenges across 5 sites.

In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low‐income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services.

A Qualitative Analysis of Lung Cancer Screening Practices by Primary Care Physicians

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States, but no scientific organization currently recommends screening because of limited evidence for its effectiveness. Despite this, physicians often order screening tests such as chest X-rays and computerized tomography scans for their patients. Limited information is available about how physicians decide when to order these tests. To identify factors that affect whether physicians’ screen patients for lung cancer, we conducted five 75-min telephone-based focus groups with 28 US primary care physicians and used inductive qualitative research methods to analyze their responses. We identified seven factors that influenced these physicians’ decisions about screening patients for lung cancer: (1) their perception of a screening test’s effectiveness, (2) their attitude toward recommended screening guidelines, (3) their practice experience, (4) their perception of a patient’s risk for lung cancer, (5) reimbursement and payment for screening, (6) their concern about litigation, and (7) whether a patient requested screening. Because these factors may have conflicting effects on physicians’ decisions to order screening tests, physicians may struggle in determining when screening for lung cancer is appropriate. We recommend (1) more clinician education, beginning in medical school, about the existing evidence related to lung cancer screening, with emphasis on the benefit of and training in tobacco use prevention and cessation, (2) more patient education about the benefits and limitations of screening, (3) further studies about the effect of patients’ requests to be screened on physicians’ decisions to order screening tests, and (4) larger, quantitative studies to follow up on our formative data.

Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: Wisdom from the field

Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations.