Search

Purpose: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988., Methods: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications., Results: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors., Conclusion: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks.

Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015)., Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process., Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT., Results: Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder., Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

Introduction: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs., Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017., Results: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing., Conclusions: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research., Methods: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC., Results: Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools., Conclusion: Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

Purpose: Receipt of a mammography recommendation from a physician is a strong predictor of obtaining a mammogram. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended routine biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 but not for women aged 40-49. We examined changes in reports of clinician recommendations for mammography among White and non-White women after these age-specific recommendations were issued., Methods: Data from women aged 40-49 and 50-74 were drawn from the 2008 and 2013 National Health Interview Surveys. We used linear probability models to determine whether the proportions of women reporting a mammography recommendation changed after the USPSTF recommendation was issued and whether any changes observed differed across White and non-White women. All analyses were stratified by age groups and mammography history., Results: Among women without a recent mammogram, reported clinician recommendations did not change for White women, but they decreased by 13-percentage points (95 % CI -0.22, -0.03) among non-White women aged 40-49 (p = 0.01) and increased by 9-percentage points (95 % CI 0.01, 0.17) among non-White women aged 50-74 (p = 0.04). Among women with a mammogram in the past 2 years, reported mammography recommendation from a clinician did not change for White or non-White women., Conclusions: Recommendations to reduce screening may be differentially implemented across racial/ethnic groups. Changes in reports of mammography recommendation from a clinician after the USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendation change were observed only among non-White women without a recent history of mammography. It is unclear whether these differences are due to the clinician, the women, or both.

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade, but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of "follow-up" (e.g., completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient-level factors and effects. Although some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity about endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration, and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Colorectal cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. The Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colorectal Cancer (STOP CRC) in Priority Populations study is a pragmatic trial and a collaboration between two research institutions and a network of more than 200 safety net clinics. The study will assess the effectiveness of a system-based intervention designed to improve the rates of colorectal-cancer screening using fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in federally qualified health centers in Oregon and Northern California., Material and Methods: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized comparative-effectiveness pragmatic trial enrolling 26 clinics. Clinics will be randomized to one of two arms. Clinics in the intervention arm (1) will use an automated, data-driven, electronic health record-embedded program to identify patients due for colorectal screening and mail FIT kits (with pictographic instructions) to them; (2) will conduct an improvement process (e.g. Plan-Do-Study-Act) to enhance the adoption, reach, and effectiveness of the program. Clinics in the control arm will provide opportunistic colorectal-cancer screening to patients at clinic visits. The primary outcomes are: proportion of age- and screening-eligible patients completing a FIT within 12months; and cost, cost-effectiveness, and return on investment of the intervention., Conclusions: This large-scale pragmatic trial will leverage electronic health record information and existing clinic staff to enroll a broad range of patients, including many with historically low colorectal-cancer screening rates. If successful, the program will provide a model for a cost-effective and scalable method to raise colorectal-cancer screening rates., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The long-standing medical tradition to "first do no harm" is reflected in population-wide evidence-based recommendations for cancer screening tests that focus primarily on reducing morbidity and mortality. The conventional cancer screening process is predicated on finding early-stage disease that can be treated effectively; yet emerging genetic and genomic testing technologies have moved the target earlier in the disease development process to identify a probabilistic predisposition to disease. Genetic risk information can have varying implications for the health and well-being of patients and their relatives, and has raised important questions about the evaluation and value of risk information. This article explores the paradigms that are being applied to the evaluation of conventional cancer screening tests and emerging genetic and genomic tests of cancer susceptibility, and how these perspectives are shifting and evolving in response to advances in our ability to detect cancer risks. We consider several challenges germane to the evaluation of both categories of tests, including defining benefits and harms in terms of personal and clinical utility, addressing healthcare consumers' information preferences, and managing scientific uncertainty. We encourage research and dialogue aimed at developing a better understanding of the value of all risk information, nongenetic and genetic, to people's lives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 23(6); 909-16. ©2014 AACR., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The complex environmental context must be considered as we move forward to improve cancer care and, ultimately, patient and population outcomes. The cancer care continuum represents several care types, each of which includes multiple technical and communication steps and interfaces among patients, providers, and organizations. We use two case scenarios to 1) illustrate the variability, diversity, and interaction of factors from multiple levels that affect care quality and 2) discuss research implications and provide hypothetical examples of multilevel interventions. Each scenario includes a targeted literature review to illustrate contextual influences upon care and sets the stage for theory-informed interventions. The screening case highlights access issues in older women, and the survivorship case illustrates the multiple transition challenges faced by patients, families, and organizations. Example interventions show the potential gains of implementing intervention strategies that work synergistically at multiple levels. While research examining multilevel intervention is a priority, it presents numerous study design, measurement, and analytic challenges.

Background: Although systems strategies are effective in improving health care delivery, little is known about their use for cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice., Methods: We assessed primary care physicians' (N = 2,475) use of systems strategies for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national survey conducted in 2007. Systems strategies included patient and physician screening reminders, performance reports of screening rates, electronic medical records, implementation of in-practice guidelines, and use of nurse practitioners/physician assistants. We evaluated use of both patient and physician screening reminders with other strategies in separate models by screening type, adjusted for the effects of physician and practice characteristics with multivariate logistic regression., Results: Fewer than 10% of physicians used a comprehensive set of systems strategies to support cancer screening; use was greater for mammography and Pap testing than for CRC screening. In adjusted analyses, performance reports of cancer screening rates, medical record type, and in-practice guidelines were associated with use of both patient and physician screening reminders for mammography, Pap testing, and CRC screening (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: Despite evidence supporting use of systems strategies in primary care, few physicians report using a comprehensive set of strategies to support cancer screening., Impact: Current health policy initiatives underscore the importance of increased implementation of systems strategies in primary care to improve the use and quality of cancer screening in the United States.

Cancer screening is a process of care consisting of several steps and interfaces. This article reviews what is known about the association between organizational factors and cancer screening rates and examines how organizational strategies can address the steps and interfaces of cancer screening in the context of both intraorganizational and interorganizational processes. We reviewed 79 studies assessing the relationship between organizational factors and cancer screening. Screening rates are largely driven by strategies to 1) limit the number of interfaces across organizational boundaries; 2) recruit patients, promote referrals, and facilitate appointment scheduling; and 3) promote continuous patient care. Optimal screening rates can be achieved when health-care organizations tailor strategies to the steps and interfaces in the cancer screening process that are most critical for their organizations, the providers who work within them, and the patients they serve.

To achieve the benefit of cancer screening, appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening test results must occur. Such follow-up requires traversing the transition between screening detection and diagnosis, including several steps and interfaces in care. This article reviews factors and interventions associated with follow-up of abnormal tests for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. We synthesized 12 reviews of descriptive and intervention studies published between 1980 and 2008. There was wide variability in definition of follow-up, setting, study population, and reported prevalence rates. Correlates of follow-up included patient characteristics (eg, knowledge and age), social support, provider characteristics, practice (eg, having reminders systems), community and professional norms (eg, quality measures), and policy (eg, federal programs). Effective interventions included patient education and support; delivery systems design changes, such as navigation; and information system changes, most notably patient tracking and physician reminders. Few studies focused explicitly on interfaces and steps of care, such as communication between primary care and specialists, or simultaneously targeted the multilevel factors that affect care. Future practice and research priorities should include development of clear operational definitions of the steps and interfaces related to patients, providers, and organizations; reflect evolving guidelines and new technologies; determine priorities for intervention testing; and improve measures and apply appropriate study designs.

The success of fecal occult blood‐based colorectal cancer screening programs is dependent on repeating screening at short intervals (ie, every 1‐2 years). We conducted a literature review to assess measures that have been used to assess longitudinal adherence to fecal‐based screening. Among 46 citations identified and included in this review, six broad classifications of longitudinal adherence were identified: (a) stratified single‐round attendance, (b) all possible adherence permutations, (c) consistent/inconsistent/never attendance, (d) number of times attended, (e) program adherence and (f) proportion of time covered. Advantages and disadvantages of these measures are described, and recommendations on which measures to use based on data availability and scientific question are also given. Stratified single round attendance is particularly useful for describing the yield of screening, while programmatic adherence measures are best suited to evaluating screening efficacy. We recommend that screening programs collect detailed longitudinal, individual‐level data, not only for the screening tests themselves but additionally for diagnostic follow‐up and surveillance exams, to allow for maximum flexibility in reporting adherence patterns using the measure of choice. What's new? Fecal‐based screening for colorectal cancer requires testing at short intervals, usually every one to two years. Consequently, screening program effectiveness is dependent on adherence to repeat screening. Here, the authors describe a literature review aimed at identifying measures to assess adherence to fecal‐based screening over time. In total, six broad categories of measures of longitudinal adherence were identified. Categories varied in amount of individual‐level data required for calculation and in suitability to address specific scientific questions. The authors further provide recommendations for choice of measure to assess longitudinal adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P =.048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P =.002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P =.518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P =.122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P =.507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P =.063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P =.695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P =.259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P =.425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P =.695). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Variations in processes for different clinics and health systems can dramatically change the way preventive interventions are implemented. We present a method for documenting these variations using workflow diagrams and demonstrate how understanding workflow aided an electronic health record (EHR) embedded colorectal cancer screening intervention. Materials and Methods: We mapped variation in processes for ordering and documenting fecal testing, current colonoscopy, prior colonoscopies, and pathology results. This work was part of a multi-site cluster-randomized pragmatic trial to test a mailed approach to offering fecal testing at 26 safety net clinics (in eight organizations) in Oregon and Northern California. We created clinic-specific workflow diagrams and then distilled them into consolidated diagrams that captured the variations. Results: Clinics had varied practices for storing and using information about colorectal cancer screening. Developing workflow diagrams of key processes enabled clinics to find optimal ways to send fecal test kits to patients due for screening. The workflows informed the rollout of new EHR tools and identified best practices for data capture. Discussion: Diagramming workflows can have great utility when implementing and refining EHR tools for clinical practice, especially when doing so across multiple clinical sites. The process of developing the workflows uncovered successful practice recommendations and revealed limitations and potential effects of a research intervention. Conclusion: Our method of documenting clinical process variation might inform other EHR-powered, multi-site research and can improve data feedback from EHR systems to clinical caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). Results: Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. Conclusion: Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]