|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 23, No 7 (March 1), 2005: pp. 1548-1554 © 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.07.049 Health Care Provider-Directed Intervention to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Veterans: Results of a Randomized Controlled TrialFrom the Veterans Affairs Midwest Center for Health Services and Policy Research, Hines; Veterans Affairs Chicago Health Care System; Departments of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Preventive Medicine, Center for Healthcare Studies, and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, LA; and Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC Address reprint requests to M. Rosario Ferreira, MD, MAPP, 676 N St Clair St, Ste 1400, Chicago, IL 60611; e-mail: mr-ferreira{at}northwestern.edu
PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer screening is the most underused cancer screening tool in the United States. The purpose of this study was to test whether a health care provider–directed intervention increased colorectal cancer screening rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was a randomized controlled trial conducted at two clinic firms at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The records of 5,711 patients were reviewed; 1,978 patients were eligible. Eligible patients were men aged 50 years and older who had no personal or family history of colorectal cancer or polyps, had not received colorectal cancer screening, and had at least one visit to the clinic during the study period. Health care providers in the intervention firm attended a workshop on colorectal cancer screening. Every 4 to 6 months, they attended quality improvement workshops where they received group screening rates, individualized confidential feedback, and training on improving communication with patients with limited literacy skills. Medical records were reviewed for colorectal cancer screening recommendations and completion. Literacy level was assessed in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer screening was recommended for 76.0% of patients in the intervention firm and for 69.4% of controls (P = .02). Screening tests were completed by 41.3% of patients in the intervention group versus 32.4% of controls (P = .003). Among patients with health literacy skills less than ninth grade, screening was completed by 55.7% of patients in the intervention group versus 30% of controls (P < .01). CONCLUSION: A provider-directed intervention with feedback on individual and firm-specific screening rates significantly increased both recommendations and colorectal cancer screening completion rates among veterans.
Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths among men in the United States.1 In 2004, an estimated 146,940 persons will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the United States, and 56,730 patients will die of the disease.1 Colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) or flexible sigmoidoscopy reduces colorectal cancer–related mortality.2-7 Although colorectal cancer screening is recommended for individuals 50 years and older,8-10 screening is underused. In a national population-based survey conducted in 2001, only 23.5% of respondents reported having a FOBT in the preceding year, and 38.7% reported having a lower endoscopy (either flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) in the preceding 5 years.11 In a 2003 report on the quality of care in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, rates of colorectal cancer screening were the lowest for any of 17 measured quality-of-care standards.12 Nationally, low utilization rates of colorectal cancer screening have been associated with patient factors, such as poor socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic minorities, and low levels of education,13-16 as well as physician-related factors, including failure to remember to offer colorectal cancer screening or lack of time to discuss colorectal cancer screening during office visits for general medical problems.17 There have been several interventions designed to increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening, including direct mailing of FOBT kits, videos, informational leaflets, and reminders, which are given to patients to review.18 Physician-directed colorectal cancer screening interventions, including reminder systems for providers, have increased FOBT adherence in the short term.19 Prior intervention assessments have been limited because none has focused on populations characterized by high rates of individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who have limited literacy skills. In clinical settings with these populations, health care providers may not have time to address preventive health measures, and patients may not be able to understand or have access to information that is disseminated in written form or by telephone or mail. The VA medical system is the largest integrated health delivery system in the country providing equal access to care. The patient population using the VA medical system has access to medical care, regardless of income level. More than half of the VA users report an income below $20,000, and only 58% have a 12th grade education level.20 Many have limited literacy skills and are unable to read or understand health-related materials.21 Physician communication to patients about the importance of colorectal cancer screening may not be well understood when patients have limited health literacy skills.21,22 In many instances, physicians are not aware of literacy barriers when communicating with patients who have limited health literacy skills and may not convey meaningful and convincing colorectal cancer screening messages to this patient population. In the VA system, a prior health maintenance study evaluated reminder systems for general medical problems, such as blood pressure control and diabetes care, and found that because of physician fatigue, any beneficial effects of this intervention quickly dissipated.23 Colorectal cancer screening was not included as one of the general medical practices in this VA randomized intervention.23 In this article, we describe a health care provider–directed intervention designed to increase the rates of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and adherence in a VA population. The health care provider–directed intervention included 1-hour meetings at 4- to 6-month intervals, during which the providers received colorectal cancer screening rates for the group, individualized confidential feedback, and instruction on effective strategies to improve communication with patients with limited literacy skills.
Setting We conducted a controlled trial, which was randomized by outpatient clinic firm, in two general medicine primary care outpatient firms at a VA Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, from May 2001 to June 2003. Although the study was initially designed as a combined provider and patient intervention, this article will focus mainly on the health care provider intervention. The study was approved by the institutional review board.
Patients
Eligibility
Health Care Providers
Group Assignment
Intervention
Objectives In this study, we tested the primary hypothesis that a provider-directed intervention would increase rates of colorectal cancer screening recommendation by providers and rates of completion of colorectal cancer screening tests by patients.
Outcome Measures Because of our interest in health literacy as a potential confounding factor, we conducted exploratory analyses to address colorectal cancer screening rates according to health literacy skills. At baseline, we identified 185 patients in the control firm and 197 patients in the intervention firm who were available to complete a short interview before their visit with the primary care provider. These patients were asked to participate in a trained research assistant–administered literacy assessment using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) instrument. The REALM is a commonly used health word recognition test that is highly correlated with other general reading tests and the Test for Functional Health Literacy in Adults.24,25 REALM raw scores range from 0 to 66 and can be converted into one of the following four reading grade levels: third grade or less (score, 8 to 18), fourth to sixth grade (score, 19 to 44), seventh to eighth grade (score, 45 to 60), and ninth grade and above (score, 61 to 66).
Statistical Analysis
Role of Funding Sources
Enrollment The process used to identify and include patients in the study is outlined in Figure 1. Research assistants reviewed the medical records of 5,711 patients and identified 4,318 patients who had an age of 50 years or older and who had visited the clinics between May 1, 2001, and December 31, 2002. Patients who met inclusion criteria by chart review were included in the study. In the control firm, the most common reasons for ineligibility were as follows: a personal history of colorectal cancer or polyps or inflammatory bowel disease (13.3%), a family history of colorectal cancer or polyps (3.7%), or the patient had completed colorectal cancer screening with either an FOBT in the previous year or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 5 years (36.1%). Thirty-four patients died during the follow-up period and were also excluded. In the intervention firm, the most common reasons for ineligibility were as follows: a personal history of colorectal cancer or polyps or inflammatory bowel disease (13.8%), a family history of colorectal cancer or polyps (3.3%), or the patient had completed colorectal cancer screening with either an FOBT in the previous year or a flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 5 years (35%). Thirty-four patients died during the follow-up period and were also excluded. A total of 963 patients met inclusion criteria in the control firm, and 1,015 patients met inclusion criteria in the intervention firm. One hundred eighty-five patients in the control firm and 197 patients in the intervention firm completed an interviewer-administered literacy assessment and brief survey. Chart reviews were available for all of the 1,978 patients included in the study.
Health Care Provider Participation in the Intervention Of the 60 providers in the intervention firm, 15 residents did not participate in the initial workshop because they were scheduled to finish their residency in less than 2 months after the study was initiated. There were four feedback sessions with providers; 84% of the physicians and nurse practitioners attended at least one session. The number of patients included in the study varied from one to 40 (median, 19 patients) for the 60 providers in the intervention arm and from one to 46 (median, 20 patients) for the 53 providers in the control arm.
Study Population
Approximately 20% of the patients in each arm participated in the literacy assessment and survey. In the intervention and control arms, one third of these patients had literacy levels lower than ninth grade, and 79% had completed high school. The distribution of marital status was similar in the control and intervention groups.
Recommendation and Completion Rates for Colorectal Cancer Screening
In the intervention group, 41.3% of patients completed either a FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy compared with 32.4% of controls (P = .003; Table 2). In the control group, 165 veterans (17.1%) returned their FOBT card, and 174 (18.1%) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. In the intervention group, 295 veterans (29.1%) returned their FOBT cards, and 190 (18.7%) underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Among patients for whom literacy skills were measured at less than the ninth grade level, 55.7% of patients in the intervention group completed screening tests compared with 30.0% of patients in the control group (P = .002; Table 3).
We found that a health care provider–directed intervention that provided feedback on individual and firm-specific colorectal cancer screening recommendation and adherence rates resulted in a 7% absolute increase in the rates of colorectal cancer screening recommendations documented by providers in electronic medical records and a 9% absolute increase in the rates of completion of colorectal cancer screening (by FOBT, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy), as documented in the medical record, among veterans who received care in a general medicine VA clinic. Our study population included male veterans, approximately half of whom were African American, who were at average risk for colorectal cancer and who were currently not compliant with colorectal cancer screening. The health care providers in the intervention arm had a high participation rate in the feedback sessions, and providers who attended more sessions were more likely to recommend screening to their patients (data not shown). In interpreting our findings, several factors should be considered. The majority of prior physician-directed colorectal cancer screening interventions use reminder systems that often include other health maintenance protocols, usually implemented in large practice settings. Overall, reminder systems for providers have resulted in an absolute increase in FOBT adherence rates of up to 14%.19 In our VA center, computerized clinical reminder systems, including a reminder for FOBT, were in place in both the intervention and the control firms before the initiation of this intervention, and improvement in screening rates in the intervention compared with the control firm occurred while both firms had clinical reminders in effect. It should be noted that a prior VA study found that provider fatigue results in high overriding rates for computerized reminders for health maintenance practices, although colorectal cancer screening was not specifically evaluated in this study.23 We found that a provider-directed intervention, focusing on interactive sessions and including individualized feedback, significantly increased colorectal cancer screening adherence beyond what could be attributed to reminder systems, underscoring the benefit of personalized feedback efforts.27 Limited literacy is a recently recognized and often overlooked potential barrier to colorectal cancer screening.28 We sought to improve patient-provider communication, especially for patients with limited literacy skills, a barrier that affects many veterans. The provider feedback sessions highlighted patient communication strategies, particularly those that have proven effective in communicating health maintenance messages to individuals with limited literacy skills. During the sessions, providers were encouraged to share practical strategies that they found helpful in communicating with their VA patients. These interactive sessions provided an opportunity to craft effective colorectal cancer screening messages that could be delivered to VA patients in a short period of time during clinic visits. Given this emphasis in the feedback sessions, it was reassuring to find that, in exploratory analyses among a subset of veterans for whom literacy skills were assessed, those who had limited literacy skills in the intervention group had an almost two-fold improvement in screening rates. The limitations of our study should be addressed. First, the patient population included only males who received care in VA general medicine clinics. Although the VA provides access to health care for all veterans, the overwhelming proportion of whom are male, it is also the largest integrated health delivery system in the country. Further studies are needed in non-VA health care settings that provide care for large numbers of persons of lower socioeconomic status. Second, the study was randomized by firm and not by patient. However, patients were randomly assigned to firms by social security number, and the patients in the two study arms were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. Moreover, among persons in the intervention and control arms who participated in the literacy assessment and brief survey, characteristics, such as marital status, education, and health literacy skills, were similar. Third, we do not know whether the presence of comorbid illnesses differentially affected participation in colorectal cancer screening, although we expect a similar distribution of comorbidities in patients in the control and intervention arms. Fourth, the patient-directed component of the intervention was not fully implemented as planned, which limits our ability to assess its effect. However, additional analyses suggest that most of the improvement in colorectal cancer screening recommendation and completion rates resulted from the provider intervention (data not shown). Finally, the quality of the review of medical records by research assistants was not evaluated, with random reabstraction of a subset of medical records. However, we expect this limitation to affect equally the intervention and the control arms, and therefore, it should not bias our interpretation of the findings of the study. In conclusion, we found that a health care provider–directed intervention, which included educational sessions and group and individualized feedback of screening rates, significantly increased adherence to colorectal cancer screening among veterans attending a general medicine VA clinic in a large urban area. Because many of VA medical centers are located in large urban areas, our results suggest that implementation of our intervention throughout urban VA medical centers could be used to improve the system-wide performance measure for colorectal cancer screening in the VA health care system.
The authors indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
We thank Rebecca Newlin, June Lee, and Phillip Hilliker for their assistance with the implementation of this study.
Supported by grant No. PCI 99-158 from the Health Services Research Division of the Department of Veterans Affairs and by grant No. R01 CA86424-01A2 from the National Cancer Institute. M.R.F. is supported by a Research Career Development Award from the Health Services Research and Development Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs (grant No. RCD-01005-1) and by the Coleman Foundation. Presented in part at the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development’s 22nd National Meeting, Washington, DC, March 9-11, 2004; at the 28th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Preventive Oncology, Bethesda, MD, March 14-16, 2004, Bethesda, MD; at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association, New Orleans, LA, May 15-20, 2004; and at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, New Orleans, LA, June 5-8, 2004. Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest are found at the end of this article.
1. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society, 2004
2. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al: Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood: Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med 328:1365-1371, 1993 3. Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, et al: Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet 348:1472-1477, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Kronborg O, Fenger C, Olsen J, et al: Randomised study of screening for colorectal cancer with faecal-occult-blood test. Lancet 348:1467-1471, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 5. Selby JV, Friedman GD, Quesenberry CP Jr, et al: A case-control study of screening sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 326:653-657, 1992[Abstract]
6. Newcomb PA, Norfleet RG, Storer BE, et al: Screening sigmoidoscopy and colorectal cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:1572-1575, 1992 7. Thiis-Evensen E, Hoff GS, Sauar J, et al: Population-based surveillance by colonoscopy: Effect on the incidence of colorectal cancer—Telemark Polyp Study I. Scand J Gastroenterol 34:414-420, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
8. US Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for colorectal cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:129-131, 2002
9. Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, et al: American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: Update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers—Also update 2001: Testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin 51:38-75, 2001 10. Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al: Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: Clinical guidelines and rationale—Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology 124:544-560, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Colorectal cancer test use among persons aged
12. Jha AK, Perllin JB, Kizer KW, et al: Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care. N Engl J Med 348:2218-2227, 2003 13. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society, 2003
14. Anderson LS, May DS: Has the use of cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health 85:840-842, 1995 15. Screening for colorectal cancer: United States, 1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 48:116-121, 1999[Medline] 16. Screening for colorectal cancer: United States, 1992-1993, and new guidelines. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 45:107-110, 1996[Medline] 17. McPhee SJ, Richard RJ, Solkowitz SN: Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: Comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 1:275-281, 1986[Medline]
18. Vernon SW: Participation in colorectal cancer screening: A review. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1406-1422, 1997
19. Balas EA, Weingarten S, Garb CT, et al: Improving preventive care by prompting physicians. Arch Intern Med 160:301-308, 2000 20. Kazis LE, Miller DR, Clark J, et al: Health-related quality of life in patients served by the Department of Veterans Affairs: Results from the Veterans Health Study. Arch Intern Med 158:626-632, 1998 21. Davis TC, Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, et al: The role of inadequate health literacy skills in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Invest 19:193-200, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, et al: Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52:134-149, 2002
23. Demakis JG, Beauchamp C, Cull WL, et al: Improving residents' compliance with standards of ambulatory care: Results from the VA cooperative study on computerized reminders. JAMA 284:1411-1416, 2000 24. Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, et al: Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: A shortened screening instrument. Fam Med 25:391-395, 1993[Medline] 25. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams V, et al: The test of functional health literacy in adults: A new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med 10:537-541, 1995[Medline]
26. Donner A, Klar N: Methods for comparing event rates in intervention studies when the unit of allocation is a cluster. Am J Epidemiol 140:279-289, 1994
27. Kiefe CA, Allison JJ, Williams OD, et al: Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 285:2871-2879, 2001
28. Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, et al: Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: Does literacy make a difference? J Clin Oncol 22:2617-2622, 2004 Submitted July 13, 2004; accepted December 2, 2004. This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2005 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
50 years: United States, 2001. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 52:193-196, 2003
