Audit form used for coding funded projects.

Results of Multinomial Regressions Showing Correlates of Two Types of Inconsistent Responses to Past Year Mammography Questions (2013), by Age Group (Adjusted)

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.

The term “big data” refers broadly to large volumes of data, often gathered from several sources, that are then analyzed, for example, for predictive analytics. Combining and mining genetic data from varied sources including clinical genetic testing, for example, electronic health records, what might be termed as “recreational” genetic testing such as ancestry testing, as well as research studies, provide one type of “big data.” Challenges and cautions in analyzing big data include recognizing the lack of systematic collection of the source data, the variety of assay technologies used, the potential variation in classification and interpretation of genetic variants. While advanced technologies such as microarrays and, more recently, next-generation sequencing, that enable testing an individual's DNA for thousands of genes and variants simultaneously are briefly discussed, attention is focused more closely on challenges to analysis of the massive data generated by these genomic technologies. The main theme of this review is to evaluate challenges associated with big data in general and specifically to bring the sophisticated technology of genetic/genomic testing down to the individual level, keeping in mind the human aspect of the data source and considering where the impact of the data will be translated and applied. Considerations in this “humanizing” process include providing adequate counseling and consent for genetic testing in all settings, as well as understanding the strengths and limitations of assays and their interpretation.

In general, it has been found that cancer fatalism is negatively associated with important cancer prevention and control behaviors, whereas religiosity is positively associated with these behaviors. Yet, the notion that religiosity gives rise to fatalistic beliefs that may discourage health behaviors is deeply ingrained in the public health literature. In addition, racial/ethnic group membership is associated with higher reports of cancer fatalism, though this association may be confounded by socioeconomic status (SES). A better understanding of the relationships between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and religiosity may contribute to the development of effective interventions to address cancer fatalism and improve health behaviors. In this study, we examined associations between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and cancer fatalism as the outcome. In addition, we tested whether religiosity (as measured by religious service attendance) moderated these relationships.

To examine whether interpersonal aspects of patient-clinician interactions, such as patient-perceived medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making contribute to racial/ethnic/educational disparities in breast cancer care. A telephone interview was administered to 542 Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Black, Hispanic, and White women identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, ages 20 and older diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from logistic regression models that assessed associations between race/ethnicity/education, medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making with concordance to breast cancer treatment guidelines (guideline-concordant treatment) and perceived quality of care (pQoC). Approximately three-quarters of women received treatment that was guideline-concordant (76.6%) and reported that their breast cancer care was excellent (72.1%). Non-college-educated Black women had lower odds of guideline-concordant care (aOR (CI) = 0.29 (0.12–0.67)) vs. college-educated White women. Odds of excellent pQoC were lower among the following: college-educated Hispanic women (aOR (CI) = 0.09 (0.02–0.47)) and API women regardless of education (aORs ≤ 0.50) vs. college-educated White women, women reporting low and moderate levels of discrimination (aORs ≤ 0.44) vs. none, and women reporting any clinician mistrust (aOR (CI) = 0.50 (0.29–0.88)) vs. none. Disparities in guideline-concordant care and pQoC persisted after controlling for medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and decision-making. Interpersonal aspects of the patient-clinician interaction had an impact on pQoC but not receipt of guideline-concordant treatment and did not explain disparities in either outcome. Although breast cancer survivors’ interpersonal interactions with clinicians did not influence receipt of appropriate treatment, intervention strategies to improve patient-clinician relations may help attenuate disparities in survivors’ pQoC.

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.

Journal of Women's HealthVol. 28, No. 8 EditorialsNeeding More to Understand Breast Cancer Screening Adherence: Multilevel AnalysisStephen H. TaplinStephen H. TaplinAddress correspondence to: Stephen H. Taplin, MD, MPH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Global Health, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852-7344 E-mail Address: taplins@mail.nih.govNational Cancer Institute, Center for Global Health, Rockville, Maryland.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:13 Aug 2019https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7637AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Needing More to Understand Breast Cancer Screening Adherence: Multilevel Analysis." Journal of Women's Health, 28(8), pp. 1011–1012FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 28Issue 8Aug 2019 InformationCopyright 2019, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishersTo cite this article:Stephen H. Taplin.Needing More to Understand Breast Cancer Screening Adherence: Multilevel Analysis.Journal of Women's Health.Aug 2019.1011-1012.http://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2018.7637Published in Volume: 28 Issue 8: August 13, 2019Online Ahead of Print:March 23, 2019PDF download

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.

The reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality afforded by population-based cancer screening programmes have led many low-income and middle-income countries to consider the implementation of national screening programmes in the public sector. Screening at the population level, when planned and organised, can greatly benefit the population, whilst disorganised screening can increase costs and reduce benefits. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) was created to share lessons, experience, and evidence regarding cancer screening in countries with organised screening programmes. Organised screening programmes provide screening to an identifiable target population and use multidisciplinary delivery teams, coordinated clinical oversight committees, and regular review by a multidisciplinary evaluation board to maximise benefit to the target population. In this Series paper, we report outcomes of the first regional consultation of the ICSN held in Agartala, India (Sept 5-7, 2016), which included discussions from cancer screening programmes from Denmark, the Netherlands, USA, and Bangladesh. We outline six essential elements of population-based cancer screening programmes, and share recommendations from the meeting that policy makers might want to consider before implementation.

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

Background: Over the past three decades, much evidence has been generated in high-income countries (HIC) for effective implementation of cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening programs and their contribution to reducing mortality. However, translation of cancer screening programs to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) continues to be a challenge. For 30 years, the US National Cancer Institute's International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) has gathered cancer screening researchers, implementers and evaluators at the ICSN biennial scientific meeting, provided expert assistance and facilitated working groups that advance research on cancer screening, via standardization of definitions, metrics, and measures, and cross-national comparative studies. For many years, this group has been comprised largely of participants from HICs, with limited participation by individuals from LMICs. However, in recent years, cancer screening has been adopted in an increasing number of LMICs. There is now a critical need to understand how to translate cancer screening delivery, program implementation, documentation, and research to LMICs. Aim: To gather insights from ICSN participants on the translatability of cancer screening knowledge between high and low-resource settings to advance the field of cancer screening globally. Methods: In 2018, ICSN conducted an evaluation research study to assess the outcomes and impacts of the ICSN to date and inform future ICSN activities, including engagement of individuals working in LMICs. Data collection consisted of a survey to our listserv, which has 666 subscribers. Results: There were 266 network members who responded to the survey, including 244 advanced who completed the full survey. The majority (58.7%) have been working in the field of cancer screening for 15 or fewer years, although 27.8% have 20 or more years of experience. Most respondents work in government agencies (32.7%) and academic institutions (37.2%), and dedicate most of their time to conducting cancer screening research. ICSN members predominantly work in organized cancer screening programs (72.6%). In addition, 80.5% work primarily in HICs and 10.9% in upper middle-income countries. Of those who attended the 2017 ICSN biennial meeting (56.1%), 78.8% agreed that it enabled them to learn from cancer screening in higher resource settings while 66.4% agreed that it enabled them to learn from cancer screening in lower resource settings. Conclusion: With 30 years of experience facilitating the advancement of cancer screening research, implementation and evaluation in HICs, the ICSN has many lessons to offer to countries that are considering establishing cancer screening programs. Findings suggest the relevance of ICSN activities to advancing cancer screening in both HICs and LMICs. ICSN is currently engaged in and developing additional approaches to advance cancer screening in LMICs, including technical assistance, workshops, and regional meetings.

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.& para;& para;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. & para;& para;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. & para;& para;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. on behalf of American Journal of Preventive Medicine

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.

Cancer incidence and mortality display strong geographic patterns worldwide and in the United States (1, 2). The environment where individuals live, work, and play is increasingly being recognized as important across the cancer control continuum, including the risk of cancer development, detection, diagnosis, treatment, mortality, and survivorship (3-5). At the same time, emergent technological capacity in geographic information systems (GIS) and mapping, along with increasing sophistication in applied spatial methods, has resulted in a growing research community developing and applying geospatial approaches in health research (5). Through collaborative, transdisciplinary efforts, and continued data collection efforts, there is great potential to apply these emerging geospatial approaches to various aspects of cancer prevention and control to inform etiology and target interventions and implementation of efficacious risk-reducing strategies. (C) 2017 AACR.

Abstract Background: Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we examined the effect of question wording on estimates of past-year mammography among racially/ethnically diverse women ages 40–49 and 50–74 without a history of breast cancer. Methods: Data from one-part (“Have you had a mammogram during the past 12 months?”) and two-part (“Have you ever had a mammogram”; “When did you have your most recent mammogram?”) mammography history questions administered in the 2008, 2011, and 2013 NHIS were analyzed. χ2 tests provided estimates of changes in mammography when question wording was either the same (two-part question) or differed (two-part question followed by one-part question) in the two survey years compared. Crosstabulations and regression models assessed the type, extent, and correlates of inconsistent responses to the two questions in 2013. Results: Reports of past-year mammography were slightly higher in years when the one-part question was asked than when the two-part question was asked. Nearly 10% of women provided inconsistent responses to the two questions asked in 2013. Black women ages 50 to 74 [adjusted OR (aOR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16–1.93] and women ages 40–49 in poor health (aOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.09–4.52) had higher odds of inconsistent responses; women without a usual source of care had lower odds (40–49: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21–0.85; 50–74: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24–0.74). Conclusions: Self-reports of mammography are sensitive to question wording. Researchers should use equivalent questions that have been designed to minimize response biases such as telescoping and social desirability. Impact: Trend analyses relying on differently worded questions may be misleading and conceal disparities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1611–8. ©2017 AACR.

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.

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.