Background We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions designed to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in safety-net settings. Methods A three-arm, quasi-experimental evaluation was conducted among 8 clinics in Louisiana. Screening efforts included: 1) enhanced usual care, 2) literacy-informed education of patients, and 3) education plus nurse support. Overall, 961 average-risk patients, ages 50–85 were eligible for routine CRC screening and recruited. Outcomes included CRC screening completion and incremental cost-effectiveness the latter two approaches versus enhanced usual care. Results Baseline screening rates were < 3%. After the interventions, screening rates were 38.6% with enhanced usual care, 57.1% with education and 60.6% with additional nurse support. After adjusting for age, race, gender, and literacy, patients receiving education were not more likely to complete screening than those receiving enhanced usual care; those additionally receiving nurse support were 1.60 fold more likely to complete screening than those receiving enhanced usual care (95% CI 1.06 – 2.42, p=0.024). The incremental cost per additional person screened was $1,337 for nurse over enhanced usual care. Conclusions FOBT rates were increased beyond enhanced usual care by providing brief education and nurse support but not education alone. More cost effective alternatives to nurse support need to be investigated.

This article examines the relationship between literacy and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening knowledge, beliefs, and experiences, with a focus on fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs). Participants were 975 patients in 8 Louisiana federally qualified health centers. Participants were 50 years of age or older and not up to date with CRC screening; approximately half (52%) had low literacy (less than a 9th-grade level). Participants with low literacy were less likely than were those with adequate literacy to be aware of advertisements promoting CRC screening (58.7% vs. 76.3%, p < .0001) or to believe it was very helpful to find CRC early (74.5% vs. 91.9%, p < .0001). The majority of participants had positive beliefs about the benefits of CRC screening using FOBTs. Participants with low literacy had more perceived barriers to FOBT completion and were more likely to strongly agree or agree that FOBTs would be confusing, embarrassing, or a lot of trouble; however, none of these remained significant in multivariate analyses controlling for relevant covariates. Confidence in being able to obtain an FOBT kit was high among those with low and adequate literacy (89.8% vs. 93.1%, respectively, p = .20); yet multivariate analyses revealed a significant difference in regard to literacy (p = .04) with low-literacy participants indicating less confidence. There was no significant difference by literacy in ever receiving a physician recommendation for CRC screening (38.4% low vs. 39.0% adequate, p = .79); however, multivariate analyses revealed significant differences in FOBT completion by literacy (p = .036). Overall, findings suggest that literacy is a factor in patients’ CRC knowledge, beliefs, and confidence in obtaining a FOBT.

Use of a visual aid improved mothers' knowledge and showed promise as a decision aid for counseling at the threshold of viability.

Most participants were unclear about when they should begin mammography. Rural participants reported stronger positive beliefs, higher self-efficacy, fewer barriers, and having a physician recommendation for mammography but were less likely to receive education or screening.

Objectives To contrast barriers to colon cancer (CRC) screening and Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) completion between rural and urban safety-net patients. Methods Interviews were administered to 972 patients who were not up-to-date with screening. Results Rural patients were more likely to believe it was helpful to find CRC early (89.7% vs 66.1%, p < .0001), yet were less likely to have received a screening recommendation (36.4% vs. 45.8%, p = .03) or FOBT information (14.5% vs 32.3%, p < .0001) or to have completed an FOBT (22.0% vs 45.8%, p < .0001). Conclusions Interventions are needed to increase screening recommendation, education and completion, particularly in rural areas.

Purpose To determine the effect of common components of primary care-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening interventions on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) completion within rural and urban community clinics, including: (1) physician’s spoken recommendation, (2) providing information or education about FOBTs, and (3) physician providing the FOBT kit; to determine the relative effect of these interventions; and to compare the effect of each intervention between rural and urban clinics. Methods We conducted structured interviews with patients aged 50 years and over receiving care at community clinics that were noncompliant with CRC screening. Self-report of ever receiving a physician’s recommendation for screening, FOBT information or education, physician providing an FOBT kit, and FOBT completion were collected. Findings Participants included 849 screening-eligible adults; 77% were female and 68% were African American. The median age was 57; 33% lacked a high school diploma and 51% had low literacy. In multivariable analysis, all services were predictive of rural participants completing screening (physician recommendation: P = .002; FOBT education: P = .001; physician giving FOBT kit: P < .0001). In urban clinics, only physician giving the kit predicted FOBT completion (P < .0001). Compared to urban patients, rural patients showed a stronger relationship between FOBT completion and receiving a physician recommendation (risk ratio [RR]: 5.3 vs 2.1; P = .0001), receiving information or education on FOBTs (RR: 3.8 vs 1.9; P = .0002), or receiving an FOBT kit from their physician (RR: 22.3 vs 10.1; P = .035). Conclusions Participants who receive an FOBT kit from their physician are more likely to complete screening.

Background Colorectal cancer often presents with obstruction needing urgent, potentially life-saving decompression. The comparative efficacy and safety of endoluminal stenting versus emergency surgery as initial treatment for such patients is uncertain. Methods Patients with left-sided colonic obstruction and radiological features of carcinoma were randomized to endoluminal stenting using a combined endoscopic/fluoroscopic technique followed by elective surgery 1–4 weeks later, or surgical decompression with or without tumour resection. Treatment allocation was via a central randomization service using a minimization procedure stratified by curative intent, primary tumour site, and severity score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation). Co-primary outcome measures were duration of hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were stoma formation, stenting completion and complication rates, perioperative morbidity, 6-month survival, 3-year recurrence, resource use, adherence to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Analyses were undertaken by intention to treat. Results Between 23 April 2009 and 22 December 2014, 245 patients from 39 hospitals were randomized. Stenting was attempted in 119 of 123 allocated patients (96.7 per cent), achieving relief of obstruction in 98 of 119 (82.4 per cent). For the 89 per cent treated with curative intent, there were no significant differences in 30-day postoperative mortality (3.6 per cent (4 of 110) versus 5.6 per cent (6 of 107); P = 0.48), or duration of hospital stay (median 19 (i.q.r. 11–34) versus 18 (10–28) days; P = 0.94) between stenting followed by delayed elective surgery and emergency surgery. Among patients undergoing potentially curative treatment, stoma formation occurred less frequently in those allocated to stenting than those allocated to immediate surgery (47 of 99 (47.5 per cent) versus 72 of 106 (67.9 per cent); P = 0.003). There were no significant differences in perioperative morbidity, critical care use, quality of life, 3-year recurrence or mortality between treatment groups. Conclusion Stenting as a bridge to surgery reduces stoma formation without detrimental effects. Registration number: ISRCTN13846816 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Although only about a third of patients remained engaged through the 2 follow-up calls, most of those who did reported they had achieved their action plan. This pilot study provides insight into initiating brief diabetes self-management strategies in resource-poor community clinics. Although telephone follow-up was challenging, using the self-management guide and action plan framework, particularly during the initial clinic visit, helped focus patients on behavior change.