Last data update: Jun 24, 2024. (Total: 47078 publications since 2009)
Records 1-22 (of 22 Records) |
Query Trace: Escoffery C [original query] |
---|
Implementing mailed colorectal cancer fecal screening tests in real-world primary care settings: Promising implementation practices and opportunities for improvement
Hohl SD , Maxwell AE , Sharma KP , Sun J , Vu TT , DeGroff A , Escoffery C , Schlueter D , Hannon PA . Prev Sci 2023 1-12 Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support. |
Community health workers to increase cancer screening: 3 Community Guide systematic reviews
Okasako-Schmucker DL , Peng Y , Cobb J , Buchanan LR , Xiong KZ , Mercer SL , Sabatino SA , Melillo S , Remington PL , Kumanyika SK , Glenn B , Breslau ES , Escoffery C , Fernandez ME , Coronado GD , Glanz K , Mullen PD , Vernon SW . Am J Prev Med 2022 INTRODUCTION: Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.523.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.421.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.517.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status. DISCUSSION: Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake. |
Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program
Sharma KP , DeGroff A , Hohl SD , Maxwell AE , Escoffery NC , Sabatino SA , Joseph DA . Prev Med Rep 2022 29 101904 Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality. Implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) increases CRC screening. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which combinations of EBIs or strategies led to increases in clinic-level screening rates among clinics participating in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Data were collected from CRCCP clinics between 2015 and 2018 and the analysis was conducted in 2020. The outcome variable was the annual change in clinic level CRC screening rate in percentage points. We used first difference (FD) estimator of linear panel data regression model to estimate the associations of outcome with independent variables, which include different combinations of EBIs and intervention strategies. The study sample included 486 unique clinics with 1156 clinic years of total observations. The average baseline screening rate was 41 % with average annual increase of 4.6 percentage points. Only two out of six combinations of any two EBIs were associated with increases in screening rate (largest was 6.5 percentage points, P < 0.001). Any combinations involving three EBIs or all four EBIs were significantly associated with the outcome with largest increase of 7.2 percentage points (P < 0.001). All interventions involving 2-3 strategies led to increases in rate with largest increase associated with the combination of increasing community demand and access (6.1 percentage points, P < 0.001). Clinics implementing combinations of these EBIs, particularly those including three or more EBIs, often were more likely to have impact on screening rate change than those implementing none. |
Evaluating uptake of evidence-based interventions in 355 clinics partnering with the Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2015-2018
Maxwell AE , DeGroff A , Hohl SD , Sharma KP , Sun J , Escoffery C , Hannon PA . Prev Chronic Dis 2022 19 E26 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers). EVALUATION METHODS: Clinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs. RESULTS: In our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Clinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions. |
Development of a field guide for assessing readiness to implement evidence-based cancer screening interventions in primary care clinics
Hohl SD , Melillo S , Vu TT , Escoffery C , DeGroff A , Schlueter D , Ross LW , Maxwell AE , Sharma KP , Boehm J , Joseph D , Hannon PA . Prev Chronic Dis 2022 19 E25 Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases. |
Evidence-Based Interventions and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: The Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, 2015-2017
Sharma KP , DeGroff A , Maxwell AE , Cole AM , Escoffery NC , Hannon PA . Am J Prev Med 2021 61 (3) 402-409 INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening rates among people aged 50-75 years in areas where rates are lower than state or national levels. The aim of this study is to better understand the effectiveness of specific Colorectal Cancer Control Program components. METHODS: The study population included clinics enrolled in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program during Years 1 and 2. Clinic data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually from 2015 to 2017 for program evaluation were used. The outcome variable was screening rate change through Program Year 2, and predictor variables were a new implementation or enhancement of evidence-based interventions and other program components. The analysis, conducted in 2020, used ordinary least square and generalized estimating equations regressions and first difference models to estimate the associations of independent variables with the outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 336 clinics, 50%-70% newly implemented or enhanced different evidence-based interventions. Among these, client reminders were most highly associated with the increase in screening rates (8.0 percentage points). Provider reminder was not significantly associated with any change in screening rates. Among all program components, having a colorectal cancer screening champion was most highly (8.4 percentage points) associated with screening rate change. Results from different models were slightly different but in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and colorectal cancer screening champions were associated with increased clinic-level colorectal cancer screening rates. Universal implementation of these strategies can substantially increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S. |
Improving Screening Uptake among Breast Cancer Survivors and Their First-Degree Relatives at Elevated Risk to Breast Cancer: Results and Implications of a Randomized Study in the State of Georgia.
Lipscomb J , Escoffery C , Gillespie TW , Henley SJ , Smith RA , Chociemski T , Almon L , Jiang R , Sheng X , Goodman M , Ward KC . Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 17 (3) ![]() Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively early age (</=45 years) or with bilateral disease at any age are at elevated risk for additional breast cancer, as are their female first-degree relatives (FDRs). We report on a randomized trial to increase adherence to mammography screening guidelines among survivors and FDRs. From the Georgia Cancer Registry, breast cancer survivors diagnosed during 2000-2009 at six Georgia cancer centers underwent phone interviews about their breast cancer screening behaviors and their FDRs. Nonadherent survivors and FDRs meeting all inclusion criteria were randomized to high-intensity (evidence-based brochure, phone counseling, mailed reminders, and communications with primary care providers) or low-intensity interventions (brochure only). Three and 12-month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Data analyses used standard statistical approaches. Among 1055 survivors and 287 FDRs who were located, contacted, and agreed to participate, 59.5% and 62.7%, respectively, reported breast cancer screening in the past 12 months and were thus ineligible. For survivors enrolled at baseline (N = 95), the proportion reporting adherence to guideline screening by 12 months post-enrollment was similar in the high and low-intensity arms (66.7% vs. 79.2%, p = 0.31). Among FDRs enrolled at baseline (N = 83), screening was significantly higher in the high-intensity arm at 12 months (60.9% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.03). Overall, about 72% of study-eligible survivors (all of whom were screening nonadherent at baseline) reported screening within 12 months of study enrollment. For enrolled FDRs receiving the high-intensity intervention, over 60% reported guideline screening by 12 months. A major conclusion is that using high-quality central cancer registries to identify high-risk breast cancer survivors and then working closely with these survivors to identify their FDRs represents a feasible and effective strategy to promote guideline cancer screening. |
Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening
DeGroff A , Gressard L , Glover-Kudon R , Rice K , Tharpe FS , Escoffery C , Gersten J , Butterly L . BMC Health Serv Res 2019 19 (1) 803 BACKGROUND: A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program's (NHCRCSP) patient navigation (PN) program. The PN intervention was delivered by telephone with navigators following a rigorous, six-topic protocol to support low-income patients to complete colonoscopy screening. We applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework to examine implementation processes and consider potential scalability of this intervention. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation study was conducted including 1) a quasi-experimental, retrospective, comparison group study examining program effectiveness, 2) secondary analysis of NHCRCSP program data, and 3) a case study. Data for all navigated patients scheduled and notified of their colonoscopy test date between July 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 (N = 443) were analyzed. Researchers were provided in-depth call details for 50 patients randomly selected from the group of 443. The case study included review of program documents, observations of navigators, and interviews with 27 individuals including staff, patients, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Program reach was state-wide, with navigators serving patients from across the state. The program successfully recruited patients from the intended priority population who met the established age, income, and insurance eligibility guidelines. Analysis of the 443 NHCRCSP patients navigated during the study period demonstrated effectiveness with 97.3% completing colonoscopy, zero missed appointments (no-shows), and 0.7% late cancellations. Trained and supervised nurse navigators spent an average of 124.3 min delivering the six-topic PN protocol to patients. Navigators benefited from a real-time data system that allowed for patient tracking, communication across team members, and documentation of service delivery. Evaluators identified several factors supporting program maintenance including consistent funding support from CDC, a strong program infrastructure, and partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Factors supporting implementation included funding for colonoscopies, use of registered nurses, a clinical champion, strong partnerships with primary care and endoscopy sites, fidelity to the PN protocol, significant intervention dose, and a real-time data system. Further study is needed to assess scalability to other locations. |
Patient navigator reported patient barriers and delivered activities in two large federally-funded cancer screening programs
Barrington WE , DeGroff A , Melillo S , Vu T , Cole A , Escoffery C , Askelson N , Seegmiller L , Gonzalez SK , Hannon P . Prev Med 2019 129S 105858 Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs. |
Adoption and implementation of evidence-based colorectal cancer screening interventions among cancer control program grantees, 2009-2015
Hannon PA , Maxwell AE , Escoffery C , Vu T , Kohn MJ , Gressard L , Dillon-Sumner L , Mason C , DeGroff A . Prev Chronic Dis 2019 16 E139 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation. INTERVENTION APPROACH: CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates. EVALUATION METHODS: We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation. RESULTS: Most grantees implemented small media (>/=25) or client reminders (>/=21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners. |
Self-management in epilepsy: Why and how you should incorporate self-management in your practice
Helmers SL , Kobau R , Sajatovic M , Jobst BC , Privitera M , Devinsky O , Labiner D , Escoffery C , Begley CE , Shegog R , Pandey D , Fraser RT , Johnson EK , Thompson NJ , Horvath KJ . Epilepsy Behav 2017 68 220-224 Epilepsy presents many challenges for those affected by the disease as well as for family members and providers [1,2]. Epilepsy providers routinely educate and counsel patients on their epilepsy and related health issues. Yet, people with epilepsy spend almost all of their time outside of their doctor’s office. Providers cannot support and monitor treatment adherence, mood, or enhance their patients’ healthful behaviors, coping skills, and quality of life on a daily basis. Providers may also fail to recognize or treat common co-morbidities such as depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and sleep disorders that can adversely affect seizure control and quality of life [3–4]. Often lacking a multidisciplinary team, or having insufficient time in clinical encounters, providers cannot fully address these and related psychosocial needs of their patients with epilepsy [5]. Introducing and encouraging access to patients self-management support can address these gaps in care, ultimately transferring “ownership” of care from provider to patient [6,7]. At the individual level, self-management aims to increase patients’ skills and confidence in monitoring symptoms, problem-solving, decision-making, goal-setting, communicating, and adopting healthful behaviors to improve health and quality of life [8–11]. Self-management is a partnership between the patient and provider, incorporating patients’ preferences and goals—making it patient-centered. Self-management also facilitates positive health—inclusive of physical, mental, and social resources that actively promote well-being [12]. Epilepsy self-management domains (e.g., treatment adherence, tracking seizures and medication side effects, stress reduction, sleep, safety, communication) have been extensively reviewed [10,11,13]. |
What strategies are used to build practitioners' capacity to implement community-based interventions and are they effective?: a systematic review
Leeman J , Calancie L , Hartman MA , Escoffery CT , Herrmann AK , Tague LE , Moore AA , Wilson KM , Schreiner M , Samuel-Hodge C . Implement Sci 2015 10 (1) 80 BACKGROUND: Numerous agencies are providing training, technical assistance, and other support to build community-based practitioners' capacity to adopt and implement evidence-based prevention interventions. Yet, little is known about how best to design capacity-building interventions to optimize their effectiveness. Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol.50:445-59, 2102) proposed the Evidence-Based System of Innovation Support (EBSIS) as a framework to guide research and thereby strengthen the evidence base for building practitioners' capacity. The purpose of this review was to contribute to further development of the EBSIS by systematically reviewing empirical studies of capacity-building interventions to identify (1) the range of strategies used, (2) variations in the way they were structured, and (3) evidence for their effectiveness at increasing practitioners' capacity to use evidence-based prevention interventions. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for English-language articles reporting findings of empirical studies of capacity-building interventions that were published between January 2000 and January 2014 and were intended to increase use of evidence-based prevention interventions in non-clinical settings. To maximize review data, studies were not excluded a priori based on design or methodological quality. Using the EBSIS as a guide, two researchers independently extracted data from included studies. Vote counting and meta-summary methods were used to summarize findings. RESULTS: The review included 42 publications reporting findings from 29 studies. In addition to confirming the strategies and structures described in the EBSIS, the review identified two new strategies and two variations in structure. Capacity-building interventions were found to be effective at increasing practitioners' adoption (n = 10 of 12 studies) and implementation (n = 9 of 10 studies) of evidence-based interventions. Findings were mixed for interventions' effects on practitioners' capacity or intervention planning behaviors. Both the type and structure of capacity-building strategies may have influenced effectiveness. The review also identified contextual factors that may require variations in the ways capacity-building interventions are designed. CONCLUSIONS: Based on review findings, refinements are suggested to the EBSIS. The refined framework moves the field towards a more comprehensive and standardized approach to conceptualizing the types and structures of capacity-building strategies. This standardization will assist with synthesizing findings across studies and guide capacity-building practice and research. |
Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees in the U.S
Escoffery C , Hannon P , Maxwell AE , Vu T , Leeman J , Dwyer A , Mason C , Sowles S , Rice K , Gressard L . BMC Public Health 2015 15 (1) 49 BACKGROUND: Practitioners often require training and technical assistance to build their capacity to select, adapt, and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to promote CRC screening to increase population-level screening. This study identified the training and technical assistance (TA) needs and preferences for training related to the implementation of EBIs among CRCCP grantees. METHODS: Twenty-nine CRCCP grantees completed an online survey about their screening activities, training and technical assistance in 2012. They rated desire for training on various evidence-based strategies to increase cancer screening, evidence-based competencies, and program management topics. They also reported preferences for training formats and facilitators and barriers to trainings. RESULTS: Many CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding finding EBIs, assessing organizational capacity, implementing selected EBIs, and conducting process and outcome evaluations. Other desired training topics reported with higher frequency were partnership development and data collection/evaluation. Grantees preferred training formats that were interactive such as on-site trainings, webinars or expert consultants. CONCLUSIONS: Public health organizations need greater supports for adopting evidence-based interventions, working with organizational-level change, partnership development and data management. Future capacity building efforts for the adoption of EBIs should focus on systems or provider level interventions and key processes for health promotion and should be delivered in a variety of ways to assist local organizations in cancer prevention and control. |
Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees and nongrantees, 2011-2012
Maxwell AE , Hannon PA , Escoffery C , Vu T , Kohn M , Vernon SW , DeGroff A . Prev Chronic Dis 2014 11 E170 INTRODUCTION: Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees). METHODS: We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions. RESULTS: CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program's potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates. |
Key informant interviews with coordinators of special events conducted to increase cancer screening in the United States
Escoffery C , Rodgers K , Kegler MC , Haardorfer R , Howard D , Roland KB , Wilson KM , Castro G , Rodriguez J . Health Educ Res 2014 29 (5) 730-9 Special events such as health fairs, cultural festivals and charity runs are commonly employed in the community to increase cancer screening; however, little is known about their effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to assess the activities, screening outcomes, barriers and recommendations of special events to increase breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. In-depth interviews were conducted nationally with 51 coordinators of events in June to September 2012. Health fairs and screening days were the most common events conducted, primarily for breast cancer education. Goals were to increase awareness of cancer screening and reach special populations. Evidence-based Community Guide strategies to increase cancer screening employed were: small media, reducing structural barriers, one-on-one education or group education. For each event that provided screening on-site or through referral, a mean of 35 breast, 28 cervical and 19 colorectal cancer screenings were reported. Coordinators made recommendations for further evaluation of special events, and most plan to conduct another special event. These data are novel and provide baseline documentation of activities and recommendations for a commonly used community-based cancer screening intervention that lacks evidence of effectiveness. Additional research to better understand the use of special events for increasing cancer screening is warranted. |
Patient navigation in a colorectal cancer screening program
Escoffery C , Fernandez ME , Vernon SW , Liang S , Maxwell AE , Allen JD , Dwyer A , Hannon PA , Kohn M , DeGroff A . J Public Health Manag Pract 2014 21 (5) 433-40 CONTEXT: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers affecting both men and women in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supports both direct clinical screening services (screening provision) and activities to promote screening at the population level (screening promotion). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize patient navigation (PN) programs for screening provision and promotion for the first 1 to 2 years of program funding. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the 29 CRCCP grantees (25 states and 4 tribal organizations) and 14 in-depth interviews to assess program implementation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey and interview guide collected information on CRC screening provision and promotion activities and PN, including the structure of the PN program, characteristics of the navigators, funding mechanism, and navigators' activities. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 28 CRCCP grantees of the survey used PN for screening provision whereas 18 grantees used navigation for screening promotion. Navigators were often trained in nursing or public health. Navigation activities were similar for both screening provision and promotion, and common tasks included assessing and responding to patient barriers to screening, providing patient education, and scheduling appointments. For screening provision, activities centered on making reminder calls, educating patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopies, and tracking patients for completion of the tests. Navigation may influence screening quality by improving patients' bowel preparation for colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights into PN across a federally funded CRC program. Results suggest that PN activities may be instrumental in recruiting people into cancer screening and ensuring completed screening and follow-up. |
A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the United States
Escoffery C , Rodgers KC , Kegler MC , Haardorfer R , Howard DH , Liang S , Pinsker E , Roland KB , Allen JD , Ory MG , Bastani R , Fernandez ME , Risendal BC , Byrd TL , Coronado GD . BMC Public Health 2014 14 (1) 274 BACKGROUND: Special events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening. METHODS: Articles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers. RESULTS: Of the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Special events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening. |
Colorectal cancer control program grantees' use of evidence-based interventions
Hannon PA , Maxwell AE , Escoffery C , Vu T , Kohn M , Leeman J , Carvalho ML , Pfeiffer DJ , Dwyer A , Fernandez ME , Vernon SW , Liang L , Degroff A . Am J Prev Med 2013 45 (5) 644-8 BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for adults aged 50-75 years, yet screening rates are low, especially among the uninsured. The CDC initiated the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2014. A total of 29 grantees (states and tribal organizations) receive CRCCP funding to (1) screen uninsured adults and (2) promote CRC screening at the population level. PURPOSE: CRCCP encourages grantees to use one or more of five evidence-based interventions (EBIs) recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services. The purpose of the study was to evaluate grantees' EBI use. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted in 2011 measuring grantees' use of CRC screening EBIs and identifying their implementation partners. Data were analyzed in 2012. RESULTS: Twenty-eight grantees (97%) completed the survey. Most respondents (96%) used small media. Fewer used client reminders (75%); reduction of structural barriers (50%); provider reminders (32%); or provider assessment and feedback (50%). Provider-oriented EBIs were rated as harder to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees partnered with several types of organizations to implement EBIs, many with county- or state-wide reach. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all grantees implement EBIs to promote CRC screening, but the EBIs that may have the greatest impact with CRC screening are implemented by fewer grantees in the first 2 years of the CRCCP. |
Reducing barriers to breast cancer care through Avon patient navigation programs
Stanley S , Arriola KJ , Smith S , Hurlbert M , Ricci C , Escoffery C . J Public Health Manag Pract 2012 19 (5) 461-7 CONTEXT: Avon Foundation for Women grantees provide breast cancer services through patient navigation (PN) in an effort to alleviate barriers to care among underserved women. OBJECTIVE: To gain a better understanding of how PN programs function, this study explores variations in the use of navigators, types of services offered, description of clients they serve, tracking of treatment completion, and evaluation mechanisms. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-six Avon PN programs funded since 2008 throughout the United States were contacted. DESIGN: An online survey was distributed to the grantees of which 44 (81%) complete responses were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Clients were racially and ethnically diverse, mostly in the 40- to 64-year old age range (64%) and 91.6% with an average income of less than $30,000. Women were either uninsured (50.7%) or receiving Medicaid (32.4%). PN programs were both community and hospital-based (22.5%); many hospitals (35.2%) were described as safety nets (eg, provide a significant level of care to low-income, uninsured, vulnerable populations). On-site services included breast screening (eg, mammography and breast ultrasound) and treatment (eg, breast surgery and radiation therapy). Some barriers to care identified by the programs included transportation, access to appointments, language, and financial issues (eg, cost of screening and treatment specifically for those uninsured). More than 39% of programs provided care across the cancer continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Many Avon PN programs incorporated navigation services that span the cancer care continuum. They addressed disparities by offering navigation and on-site medical services to reduce multiple systems barriers and social issues related to breast care. |
Recruitment for the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program
Escoffery CT , Kegler MC , Glanz K , Graham TD , Blake SC , Shapiro JA , Mullen PD , Fernandez ME . Am J Prev Med 2012 42 (3) 235-41 BACKGROUND: To reduce disparities in breast and cervical cancer in the U.S., it is essential that programs such as CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) use evidence-based strategies. Recommendations for interventions to increase breast and cervical cancer screening have been disseminated by national public health organizations. To increase screening, cancer control planners would benefit from use of evidence-based strategies for recruitment of participants in their communities. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to inventory recruitment activities for cancer screening within NBCCEDP programs and assess if activities used to increase cancer screening are evidence-based. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 61 recruitment coordinators in 2008 to elicit their recruitment activities, use of evidence-based resources, and barriers to using evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Study data were analyzed in 2009. RESULTS: Of the 340 activities reported, many were categorized as educational materials, one-on-one education, mass media, group education, and special events. Two thirds of inventoried activities matched an EBI. Coordinators reported that colleagues and the CDC are their primary sources of information about EBIs and few coordinators had used evidence-based resources. Lack of money or funding, questionable applicability to priority populations, limited staffing or staff time, and insufficient evidence-based research were the most important barriers to EBI use. CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of NBCCEDP recruitment activities were evidence-based, one third were not. Additional training and technical assistance are recommended to help public health agencies adopt the use of these strategies. |
Spontaneous diffusion of an effective skin cancer prevention program through Web-based access to program materials
Hall DM , Escoffery C , Nehl E , Glanz K . Prev Chronic Dis 2010 7 (6) A125 INTRODUCTION: Little information exists about the diffusion of evidence-based interventions, a process that can occur naturally in organized networks with established communication channels. This article describes the diffusion of an effective skin cancer prevention program called Pool Cool through available Web-based program materials. METHODS: We used self-administered surveys to collect information from program users about access to and use of Web-based program materials. We analyzed the content of e-mails sent to the official Pool Cool Web site to obtain qualitative information about spontaneous diffusion. RESULTS: Program users were dispersed throughout the United States, most often learning about the program through a Web site (32%), publication (26%), or colleague (19%). Most respondents (86%) reported that their pool provided educational activities at swimming lessons. The Leader's Guide (59%) and lesson cards (50%) were the most commonly downloaded materials, and most respondents reported using these core items sometimes, often, or always. Aluminum sun-safety signs were the least frequently used materials. A limited budget was the most commonly noted obstacle to sun-safety efforts at the pool (85%). Factors supporting sun safety at the pool centered around risk management (85%) and health of the pool staff (78%). CONCLUSION: Diffusion promotes the use of evidence-based health programs and can occur with and without systematic efforts. Strategies such as providing well-packaged, user-friendly program materials at low or no cost and strategic advertisement of the availability of program materials may increase program use and exposure. Furthermore, highlighting the benefits of the program can motivate potential program users. |
A systematic review of measures used in studies of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine acceptability
Allen JD , Coronado GD , Williams RS , Glenn B , Escoffery C , Fernandez M , Tuff RA , Wilson KM , Mullen PD . Vaccine 2010 28 (24) 4027-37 BACKGROUND: The recent proliferation of studies describing factors associated with HPV vaccine acceptability could inform health care providers in improving vaccine coverage and support future research. This review examined measures of HPV and HPV-vaccine knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and acceptability, described psychometric characteristics, and provided recommendations about their use. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and ERIC through May 2008 for English language reports of quantitative data from parents, young adults or adolescents yielded 79 studies. RESULTS: The majority of studies were cross-sectional surveys (87%), self-administered (67%), conducted before prophylactic vaccines were publicly available (67%) and utilized convenience samples (65%). Most measured knowledge (80%), general attitudes about HPV vaccination (40%), and willingness to vaccinate one's daughter (26%). Two-thirds did not report reliability or validity of measures. The majority did not specify a theoretical framework. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a theoretical framework, consistent labeling of constructs, more rigorous validation of measures, and testing of measures in more diverse samples are needed to yield measurement instruments that will produce findings to guide practitioners in developing successful community and clinical interventions. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Jun 24, 2024
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure