IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.OBJECTIVE To identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.

IMPORTANCE Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underused, especially among vulnerable populations. Decision aids and patient navigation are potentially complementary interventions for improving CRC screening rates, but their combined effect on screening completion is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine the combined effect of a CRC screening decision aid and patient navigation compared with usual care on CRC screening completion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this randomized clinical trial, data were collected from January 2014 to March 2016 at 2 community health center practices, 1 in North Carolina and 1 in New Mexico, serving vulnerable populations. Patients ages 50 to 75 years who had average CRC risk, spoke English or Spanish, were not current with recommended CRC screening, and were attending primary care visits were recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. INTERVENTIONS Intervention participants viewed a CRC screening decision aid in English or Spanish immediately before their clinician encounter. The decision aid promoted screening and presented colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing as screening options. After the clinician encounter, intervention patients received support for screening completion from a bilingual patient navigator. Control participants viewed a food safety video before the encounter and otherwise received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was CRC screening completion within 6 months of the index study visit assessed by blinded medical record review. RESULTS Characteristics of the 265 participants were as follows: their mean age was 58 years; 173 (65%) were female, 164 (62%) were Latino; 40 (15%) were white non-Latino; 61 (23%) were black or of mixed race; 191 (78%) had a household income of less than $20 000; 101 (38%) had low literacy; 75 (28%) were on Medicaid; and 91 (34%) were uninsured. Intervention participants were more likely to complete CRC screening within 6 months (68% vs 27%); adjusted-difference, 40 percentage points (95% CI, 29-51 percentage points). The intervention was more effective in women than in men (50 vs 21 percentage point increase, interaction P = .02). No effect modification was observed across other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A patient decision aid plus patient navigation increased the rate of CRC screening completion in compared with usual care in vulnerable primary care patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02054598

BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued recommendations for older, heavy lifetime smokers to complete annual low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans of the chest as screening for lung cancer. The USPSTF recommends and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services require shared decision making using a decision aid for lung cancer screening with annual LDCT. Little is known about how decision aids affect screening knowledge, preferences, and behavior. Thus, we tested a lung cancer screening decision aid video in screening-eligible primary care patients.MethodsWe conducted a single-group study with surveys before and after decision aid viewing and medical record review at 3 months. Participants were active patients of a large US academic primary care practice who were current or former smokers, ages 55–80 years, and eligible for screening based on current screening guidelines. Outcomes assessed pre-post decision aid viewing were screening-related knowledge score (9 items about screening-related harms of false positives and overdiagnosis, likelihood of benefit; score range = 0–9) and preference (preferred screening vs. not). Screening behavior measures, assessed via chart review, included provider visits, screening discussion, LDCT ordering, and LDCT completion within 3 months.ResultsAmong 50 participants, knowledge increased from pre- to post-decision aid viewing (mean = 2.6 vs. 5.5, difference = 2.8; 95% CI 2.1, 3.6, p < 0.001). Preferences across the overall sample remained similar such that 54% preferred screening at baseline and 50% after viewing; however, 28% of participants changed their preference (to or away from screening) from baseline to after viewing. We assessed screening behavior for 36 participants who had a primary care visit during the 3-month period following enrollment. Eighteen of 36 preferred screening after decision aid viewing. Of these 18, 10 discussed screening, 8 had a test ordered, and 6 completed LDCT. Among the 18 who preferred no screening, 7 discussed screening, 5 had a test ordered, and 4 completed LDCT.ConclusionsIn primary care patients, a lung cancer screening decision aid improved knowledge regarding screening-related benefits and harms. Screening preferences and behavior were heterogeneous.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT03077230 (registered retrospectively,November 22, 2016).

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of death among Hispanics in the United States. Despite the benefits of CRC screening, many Hispanics are not being screened. Using a combined methodology of focus groups and discrete choice experiment (DCE) surveys, the objectives for this research were as follows: (1) to improve understanding of preferences regarding potential CRC screening program characteristics, and (2) to improve understanding of the barriers and facilitators around CRC screening with the Hispanic, immigrant community in North Carolina. Four gender-stratified focus groups were conducted and DCE surveys were administered to 38 Spanish-speaking individuals across four counties in North Carolina. In-depth content analysis was used to examine the focus group data; descriptive analyses and mean attribute importance scores for cost of screening and follow-up care, travel time, and test options were calculated from DCE data. Data analyses showed that this population has a strong interest in CRC screening but experience barrier such as lack of access to resources, cost uncertainty, and stigma. Some of these barriers are unique to their cultural experiences in the United States, such as an expressed lack of tailored CRC information. Based on the DCE, cost variables were more important than testing options or travel time. This study suggests that Hispanics may have a general awareness of and interest in CRC screening, but multiple barriers prevent them from getting screened. Special attention should be given to designing culturally and linguistically appropriate programs to improve access to healthcare resources, insurance, and associated costs among Hispanics.

BackgroundHealth services research of Latinos with limited English proficiency (LEP) have largely focused on studying disparities related to patient-provider communication. Less is known about their non-provider interactions such as those with patient registration systems and clinic front office staff; these interactions precede the encounter with providers and may shape how comfortable patients feel about their overall health services experience. This study explored Latino patients with LEP experiences with, and expectations for, interactions with patient registration systems and front office staff.MethodsWe conducted 20 in-depth interviews with Latinos with LEP (≥18 years of age) who seek health services in the Piedmont Triad region, North Carolina. We analyzed participants’ quotes and identified themes by using a constant comparison method. This research was conducted by a community-academic partnership; partners were engaged in study design, instrument development, recruitment, data analysis, and manuscript writing.ResultsQualitative analysis allowed us to identify the following recurring themes: 1) inconsistent registration of multiple surnames may contribute to patient misidentification errors and delays in receiving health care; 2) lack of Spanish language services in front office medical settings negatively affect care coordination and satisfaction with health care; and 3) perceived discrimination generates patients’ mistrust in front office staff and discomfort with services.ConclusionLatino patients in North Carolina experience health services barriers unique to their LEP background. Participants identified ways in which the lack of cultural and linguistic competence of front office staff negatively affect their experiences seeking health services. Healthcare organizations need to support their staff to encourage patient-centered principles.