Advertisement

Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

Published:November 30, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.007

      Introduction

      Screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk adults is recommended beginning at age 50 years and continuing until age 75 years. This study was conducted to provide evidence for the effectiveness of an American Cancer Society grant program promoting colorectal cancer screening by implementing evidence-based interventions proven to increase screening rates.

      Methods

      Analysis compared colorectal cancer screening rates in 77 grant-funded federally qualified health centers between 2013 and 2015 to those of a sample of 77 nonfunded federally qualified health centers selected using a genetic matching technique. The Uniform Data System from 2013 to 2015 provided data used in the analysis performed in 2016.

      Results

      Funded grantees differed significantly from nongrantees on several indicators at baseline. Genetic matching resulted in good-quality matched samples. Both matched samples increased colorectal cancer screening rates over time. Grantees increased their colorectal cancer screening rates significantly more than nongrantees, especially between 2013 and 2014, where funded federally qualified health centers increased by 9% and nonfunded federally qualified health centers increased by 3%. Across the 3 years, increases were 12% and 9%, respectively.

      Conclusions

      The findings suggest grant funding was effective in promoting improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates in funded federally qualified health centers, and these improvements exceed those of nonfunded federally qualified health centers. Funding that results in targeted, intensive efforts supported by technical assistance and accountability for data and reporting, can result in improved system policies and practices that, in turn, can increase screening rates among uninsured and underserved populations.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program
        SEER*Stat Database: Mortality−All COD, Aggregated with State, Total U.S. (1969–2010) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment.>.
        National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, Surveillance Research Program, Cancer Statistics Branch; 2013. Released April 2013. Underlying mortality data provided by National Center for Health Statistics, Bethesda, MD2013
        • Frazier A.L.
        • Colditz G.A.
        • Fuchs C.S.
        • Kuntz K.M.
        Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population.
        JAMA. 2000; 284: 1954-1961https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.15.1954
        • Kuipers E.J.
        • Rösch T.
        • Bretthauer M.
        Colorectal cancer screening—optimizing current strategies and new directions.
        Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10: 130-142https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.12
        • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
        Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        JAMA. 2016; 315: 2564-2575https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5989
        • Fedewa S.A.
        • Sauer A.G.
        • Siegel R.L.
        • Jemal A.
        Prevalence of major risk factors and use of screening tests for cancer in the United States.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015; 24: 637-652https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0134
        • Fedewa S.A.
        • Goodman M.
        • Flanders W.D.
        • et al.
        Elimination of cost-sharing and receipt of screening for colorectal and breast cancer.
        Cancer. 2015; 121: 3272-3280https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29494
        • Fedewa S.A.
        • Ma J.
        • Sauer A.G.
        • et al.
        How many individuals will need to be screened to increase colorectal cancer screening prevalence to 80% by 2018?.
        Cancer. 2015; 121: 4258-4265https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29659
        • Smith R.A.
        • Andrews K.S.
        • Brooks D.
        • et al.
        Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67: 100-121https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21392
      1. Health Resources and Services Administration. 2015 Health Center Profile. https://bphc.hrsa.gov/uds/datacenter.aspx. Published April 15, 2016. Accessed September 22, 2016.

      2. Guide to Community Preventive Services. Cancer Screening−Colorectal Cancer. 2016. www.thecommunityguide.org/search/colorectal%20cancer. Accessed January 10, 2017.

        • Reinier G.S.
        • Meester M.S.
        • Doubeni C.A.
        • et al.
        Public health impact of achieving 80% colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States by 2018.
        Cancer. 2015; 121: 2281-2285https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29336
        • Sekhon J.S.
        • Grieve R.D.
        A matching method for improving covariate balance in cost‐effectiveness analyses.
        Health Econ. 2012; 21: 695-714https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1748
        • Sekhon J.S.
        • Mebane W.R.J.
        Genetic optimization using derivatives: theory and application to nonlinear models.
        Polit Anal. 1998; 7: 189-203https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/7.1.187
        • Radice R.
        • Ramsahai R.
        • Grieve R.
        • Kreif N.
        • Sadique Z.
        • Sekhon J.S.
        Evaluating treatment effectiveness in patient subgroups: a comparison of propensity score methods with an automated matching approach.
        Int J Biostat. 2012; 8: 1-43https://doi.org/10.1515/1557-4679.1382
        • Rosenbaum P.
        • Rubin D.
        The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.
        Biometrika. 1983; 70: 41-55https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
        • Rosenbaum P.
        • Rubin D.
        Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score.
        J Am Stat Assoc. 1984; 79: 516-524https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078
        • Rosenbaum P.
        • Rubin D.
        Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score.
        Am Stat. 1985; 85: 33-38
        • Rubin D.
        Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation.
        Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2001; 2: 169-188https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020363010465