Background:This analysis examines the association between functional health literacy and follow-up after mammography among women receiving breast cancer screening at a National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program site in New York City that provides universal bilingual case management.Methods:A total of 707 Latinas who spoke Spanish as their primary language completed a survey of health and demographic characteristics and the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Spanish (TOFHLA-S). Survey results were matched with clinical outcome data.Results:Among the survey participants, 98% were foreign-born and 99% had no health insurance. While the study found significant differences in access to health information and past screening behavior, women without adequate health literacy in Spanish were no less likely to receive clinical resolution of abnormal mammograms within 60 days (81.8% overall; n = 110) or to return for a repeat mammogram within 18 months (57.2% overall; n = 697). In fact, among those referred for a Pap test (n = 310), women without adequate health literacy were more likely to receive a Pap test within 60 days of their mammogram than those with adequate health literacy (82% compared to 71%, OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.04–3.22).Discussion:The lack of significantly lower follow-up outcomes among women with inadequate and marginal functional health literacy in this population of primary Spanish-speaking Latinas suggests that, once women have accessed screening services, programmatic approaches may exist to mitigate barriers to follow-up and to ensure optimal cancer screening outcomes for women of all literacy levels.

Background/Aims Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment. Methods Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined. Results In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff( p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier ( p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff. Conclusion Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient–provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.

This study suggests that pairing CRC education and screening with mammography is both feasible and efficacious.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC mortality; however, for many reasons, uninsured individuals are less likely to utilize CRC screening tests. Purpose To compare CRC screening behaviors and outcomes with guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) from 1998 to 2006 and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from 2006 to 2010 in a community-based program serving uninsured patients in northern Manhattan. Methods In 2013, we conducted a retrospective record review of individuals aged ≥50 years who received fecal-based CRC screening at the Northern Manhattan Cancer Screening Partnership between 1998 and 2010. Included were those with household income ≤250% of the federal poverty level, no medical insurance coverage, and who were not up to date with CRC screening. We assessed screening positivity rate, positive predictive value, differences in the use of diagnostic colonoscopy, colonoscopic findings, and adenoma detection rates for gFOBT versus FIT. Results In total, 7,710 patients completed CRC screenings (4,951 gFOBT and 2,759 FIT). The majority were female, Hispanic, foreign born, and young at age of first screening. Compared to gFOBT, FIT detected twice as many positive tests (3.2% vs 1.5%, p≤0.001) and had a higher adenoma detection rate (18.2 vs 11.8, p=0.002). Conclusions The improved positivity and adenoma detection rates with greater number of screening tests over time favor the use of FIT over gFOBT for colorectal screening among uninsured populations in northern Manhattan.