Daniel Reuland

Systematic Review: Enhancing the Use and Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND National guideline groups recommend screening and discussion of screening options for persons at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, emerging evidence suggests that CRC screening is simultaneously underused, overused, and misused and that adequate patient-provider discussions about screening are infrequent. PURPOSE To summarize evidence on factors that influence CRC screening and strategies that increase the appropriate use and quality of CRC screening and CRC screening discussions. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for English-language publications describing studies conducted in the United States from January 1998 through September 2009. STUDY SELECTION Two reviewers independently selected studies that addressed the study questions and met eligibility criteria. DATA EXTRACTION Information on study design, setting, intervention, outcomes, and quality were extracted by one reviewer and double-checked by another. Reviewers assigned a strength-of-evidence grade for intervention categories by using criteria plus a consensus process. DATA SYNTHESIS Reviewers found evidence of simultaneous underuse, overuse, and misuse of CRC screening as well as inadequate clinical discussions about CRC screening. Several patient-level factors were independently associated with lower screening rates, including having low income or less education, being uninsured, being Hispanic or Asian, being less acculturated into the United States, or having limited access to care. Evidence that interventions that included patient reminders or one-on-one interactions (that is, between patients and nonphysician clinic staff), eliminated structural barriers (for example, simplifying access to fecal occult blood test cards), or made system-level changes (for example, using systematic screening as opposed to opportunistic screening) were effective in enhancing use of CRC screening was strong. Evidence on how best to enhance discussions about CRC screening options is limited. No studies focused on reducing overuse, and very few focused on misuse. LIMITATIONS Reporting and publication bias may have affected our findings. The independent effect of individual elements of multicomponent interventions was often uncertain. CONCLUSION Although CRC screening is underused overall, important problems of overuse and misuse also exist. System- and policy-level interventions that target vulnerable populations are needed to reduce underuse. Interventions aimed at reducing barriers by making the screening process easier are likely to be effective. Studies aimed at reducing overuse and misuse and at enhancing the quality and frequency of discussions about CRC screening options are needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Spanish Language Depression-Screening Instruments

PURPOSE To make decisions about implementing systematic depression screening, primary care physicians who serve Spanish-speaking populations need to know whether Spanish language depression-screening instruments are accurate. We aimed to review systematically the evidence regarding diagnostic accuracy of depression-screening instruments in Spanish-speaking primary care populations. METHODS We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Libraries from inception to May 28, 2008, for studies examining the diagnostic accuracy of Spanish language depression case-finding instrument(s) administered to primary-care outpatients. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and quality. RESULTS Twelve studies met inclusion criteria. In general primary care screening, the Spanish language version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) had sensitivities ranging from 76% to 92% and specificities ranging from 70% to 74%. We found no US study reporting the accuracy of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD-9) or the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) depression module in Spanish-speakers. One fair-quality European study and 1 poor-quality study conducted in Honduras found the 9-item PRIME-MD had sensitivities ranging from 72% to 77% and specificities ranging from 86% to 100%. The 2-item PRIME-MD was 92% sensitive, but only 44% specific for depression in 1 US study. In geriatric outpatients, the 15-item Spanish language version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) had sensitivities ranging from 76% to 82%, and specificities ranging from 64% to 98%. In postpartum women, the Spanish language version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) was 72% to 89% sensitive and 86% to 95% specific for major depression (2 non-US studies). The Spanish language version of the Postpartum Depression Screening Scale (PDSS) was 78% sensitive and 85% specific for combined major/minor depression (1 US study). CONCLUSIONS For depression screening in Spanish-speaking outpatients, fair evidence supports the diagnostic accuracy of the CES-D and PRIME-MD-9 in general primary care, the GDS-15-Spanish for geriatric patients, and the Spanish language versions of the EPDS or PDSS for postpartum patients. The ultrashort 2-item version of PRIME-MD may lack specificity in US Spanish-speakers.

Describing physician language fluency deconstructing medical spanish

Because many physicians who provide language-concordant care are not native speakers of Spanish, studiesare needed to help understand the degree of fluency a clini-cianneedstoprovidehigh-quality,language-concordantcom-munication. In addition, a more basic problem is the lack ofconsistencyindescribingandassessingphysicians’linguistic

A Longitudinal Medical Spanish Program at One US Medical School

INTRODUCTIONPolicymakers have recommended recruiting or training (or both) more US physicians who can provide care in Spanish. Few longitudinal medical Spanish programs have been described and evaluated.OBJECTIVEThis study aims to describe development and evaluation of the preclinical phase of a 4-y program designed to graduate physicians who can provide language-concordant care in Spanish.SETTINGStudy was done in one public medical school in southeastern USA.PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONThe program targeted intermediate/advanced Spanish speakers. Standardized fluency assessments were used to determine eligibility and evaluate participants’ progress. Curriculum included didactic coursework, simulated patients, socio-cultural seminars, clinical skills rotations at sites serving Latinos, service-learning, and international immersion.PROGRAM EVALUATIONFor the first two cohorts (n = 45) qualitative evaluation identified program improvement opportunities and found participants believed the program helped them maintain their Spanish skills. Mean interim (2-y) speaking proficiency scores were unchanged from baseline: 9.0 versus 8.7 at baseline on 12-point scale (p = 0.15). Mean interim listening comprehension scores (second cohort only, n = 25) increased from a baseline of 77 to 86% (p = 0.003). Proportions “passing” the listening comprehension test increased from 72 to 92% (p = 0.06).DISCUSSIONWe describe development of a longitudinal Spanish program within a medical school. Participation was associated with improved Spanish listening comprehension and no change in speaking proficiency.

Cultural and Linguistic Adaptation of a Multimedia Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Spanish Speaking Latinos

As the United States becomes more linguistically and culturally diverse, there is a need for effective health communication interventions that target diverse, vulnerable populations, including Latinos. To address such disparities, health communication interventionists often face the challenge to adapt existing interventions from English into Spanish in a way that retains essential elements of the original intervention while also addressing the linguistic needs and cultural perspectives of the target population. The authors describe the conceptual framework, context, rationale, methods, and findings of a formative research process used in creating a Spanish-language version of an evidence-based (English language) multimedia colorectal cancer screening decision aid. The multistep process included identification of essential elements of the existing intervention, literature review, assessment of the regional context and engagement of key stakeholders, and solicitation of direct input from target population. The authors integrated these findings in the creation of the new adapted intervention. They describe how they used this process to identify and integrate sociocultural themes such as personalism (personalismo), familism (familismo), fear (miedo), embarrassment (verguenza), power distance (respeto), machismo, and trust (confianza) into the Spanish-language decision aid.

Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: A randomized clinical trial

Importance Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. Objective To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. Design, Setting, and Participants In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. Interventions Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. Results Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than

Using videos to teach children inhaler technique: a pilot randomized controlled trial

20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. Conclusions and Relevance A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care invulnerable primary care patients. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598

Reach, Usage, and Effectiveness of a Medicaid Patient Navigator Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening, Cape Fear, North Carolina, 2011

Abstract Objective: This primary objective of this pilot randomized, controlled trial was to determine whether a brief video intervention delivered after a pediatric office visit could improve inhaler technique in children with asthma immediately and one month later. The intervention’s effect on children’s inhaler self-efficacy and asthma control was also evaluated. Methods: Children (n = 91) ages 7–17 years with persistent asthma were recruited at two pediatric practices in North Carolina. Eligible children demonstrated their inhaler technique for metered dose inhalers (MDIs) either with or without a spacer. A trained research assistant used a validated inhaler technique checklist to record which steps children performed correctly. After a regularly scheduled office visit, children were randomized to watch either a 3-min MDI video (intervention group) or a nutrition video (control group) in English or Spanish. Children’s technique was assessed again after watching the video and one month later. Results: Children were primarily male (56%) and non-White (60%). When compared with the control group, children in the intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in MDI technique post-intervention [mean = 1.12 steps, 95% CI (0.73, 1.50)] but the improvement was not sustained at 1-month follow-up. The intervention did not lead to significant improvements in inhaler self-efficacy or asthma control. Conclusions: A brief video intervention offered during pediatric clinic visits can lead to immediate improvements in children’s inhaler technique. Future studies should evaluate whether booster training videos can help maintain improvements in children’s inhaler technique over time.

Patient Decision Aids for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction Screening for colorectal cancer can reduce incidence and death, but screening is underused, especially among vulnerable groups such as Medicaid patients. Effective interventions are needed to increase screening frequency. Our study consisted of a controlled trial of an intervention designed to improve colorectal cancer screening among Medicaid patients in North Carolina. Methods The intervention included a mailed screening reminder letter and decision aid followed by telephone support from an offsite, Medicaid-based, patient navigator. The study included 12 clinical practices, 6 as intervention practices and 6 as matched controls. Eligible patients were aged 50 years or older, covered by Medicaid, and identified from Medicaid claims data as not current with colorectal cancer screening recommendations. We reviewed Medicaid claims data at 6 months and conducted multivariate logistic regression to compare participant screening in intervention practices with participants in control practices. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics. Results Most of the sample was black (53.1%) and female (57.2%); the average age was 56.5 years. On the basis of Medicaid claims, 9.2% of intervention participants (n = 22/240) had had a colorectal cancer screening at the 6-month review, compared with 7.5% of control patients (n = 13/174). The adjusted odds ratio when controlling for age, comorbidities, race, sex, and continuous Medicaid eligibility was 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.68–3.06). The patient navigator reached 44 participants (27.6%). Conclusion The intervention had limited reach and little effect after 6 months on the number of participants screened. Higher-intensity interventions, such as use of practice-based navigators, may be needed to reach and improve screening rates in vulnerable populations.

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients: Promoting Informed and Shared Decisions.

CONTEXT Decision aids prepare patients to make decisions about healthcare options consistent with their preferences. Helping patients choose among available options for colorectal cancer screening is important because rates are lower than screening for other cancers. This systematic review describes studies evaluating patient decision aids for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk adults and their impact on knowledge, screening intentions, and uptake. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid PsycINFO through July 21, 2015, pertinent reference lists, and Cochrane review of patient decisions aids. Reviewers independently selected studies that quantitatively evaluated a decision aid compared to one or more conditions or within a pre-post evaluation. Using a standardized form, reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes. Analysis was conducted in August 2015. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Twenty-three articles representing 21 trials including 11,900 subjects were eligible. Patients exposed to a decision aid showed greater knowledge than those exposed to a control condition (mean difference=18.3 of 100; 95% CI=15.5, 21.1), were more likely to be interested in screening (pooled relative risk=1.5; 95% CI=1.2, 2.0), and more likely to be screened (pooled relative risk=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.4). Decision aid patients had greater knowledge than patients receiving general colorectal cancer screening information (pooled mean difference=19.3 of 100; 95% CI=14.7, 23.8); however, there were no significant differences in screening interest or behavior. CONCLUSIONS Decision aids improve knowledge and interest in screening, and lead to increased screening over no information, but their impact on screening is similar to general colorectal cancer screening information.