Background Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie,, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States (US). We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016–2018. Methods The American College of Radiology’s Lung Cancer Screening Registry (LCSR) was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SR) in eligible adults and rate ratios (SRR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year. Results Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95%CI =3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95%CI =3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95%CI = 5.0 to 5.7) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SRR = 1.52, 95%CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several Southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several Northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8–15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation’s highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%). Conclusions Less than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS.

BackgroundImplementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to increase cancer screenings in safety net primary care systems has great potential for reducing cancer disparities. Yet there is a gap in understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence EBP implementation within these high-priority systems. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), our study aims to fill this gap with a multiple case study of health care safety net systems that were funded by an American Cancer Society (ACS) grants program to increase breast and colorectal cancer screening rates. The initiative funded 68 safety net systems to increase cancer screening through implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies.MethodsData are from a mixed-methods evaluation with nine purposively selected safety net systems. Fifty-two interviews were conducted with project leaders, implementers, and ACS staff. Funded safety net systems were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-performing cases based on the level of EBP implementation. Within- and cross-case analyses were performed to identify CFIR constructs that influenced level of EBP implementation.ResultsOf 39 CFIR constructs examined, six distinguished levels of implementation. Two constructs were from the intervention characteristics domain: adaptability and trialability. Three were from the inner setting domain: leadership engagement, tension for change, and access to information and knowledge. Engaging formally appointed internal implementation leaders, from the process domain, also distinguished level of implementation. No constructs from the outer setting or individual characteristics domain differentiated systems by level of implementation.ConclusionsOur study identified a number of influential CFIR constructs and illustrated how they impacted EBP implementation across a variety of safety net systems. Findings may inform future dissemination efforts of EBPs for increasing cancer screening in similar settings. Moreover, our analytic approach is similar to previous case studies using CFIR and hence could facilitate comparisons across studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0477-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Breast cancer screening utilization steeply dropped at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. However, the effects on breast cancer screening in lower income populations are unknown. This study examined changes in breast cancer screening rates (BCSRs) during the pandemic among 32 community health centers (CHCs) that provided health care to lower income populations. Methods Secondary data from 32 CHCs participating in an American Cancer Society grant program to increase breast cancer screening services were used. BCSRs were defined as the percentage of women aged 50 to 74 years who had a medical visit in the past 12 months (142,207 in 2018, 142,003 in 2019, and 150,630 in 2020) and received a screening mammogram within the last 27 months. BCSRs in July 2020, July 2019, and June 2018 were compared with screening rate ratios (SRRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results BCSRs significantly rose by 18% between 2018 and 2019 (from 45.8% to 53.9%; SRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17‐1.18) and then declined by 8% between 2019 and 2020 (from 53.9% to 49.6%; SRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.92‐0.93). If the 2018‐2019 BCSR trends had continued through 2020, 63.3% of women would have been screened in 2020 in contrast to the 49.6% who were; this potentially translated into 47,517 fewer mammograms and 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses in this population. Conclusions In this study of 32 CHCs, BCSRs declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020, and this reversed an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. Declining BCSRs among CHCs during the COVID‐19 pandemic call for policies to support and resources to identify women in need of screening.

PurposePopulation-based carrier screening for fragile X syndrome (FXS) is still not universally endorsed by professional organizations due to concerns around genetic counseling for complex information and potential for psychosocial harms.MethodsWe determined uptake levels, decision making, and psychosocial impact in a prospective study of pregnant and nonpregnant Australian women offered FXS carrier screening in clinical settings. Women received pretest genetic counseling, and completed questionnaires when deciding and one month later.ResultsOf 1,156 women recruited, 83.1% returned the first questionnaire with 70.6% nonpregnant and 58.8% pregnant women choosing testing (χ=16.98, P<0.001). Overall, informed choice was high in both nonpregnant (77.4%) and pregnant (72.9%) women (χ=0.21, P=0.644), and more tested (76.0%) than not-tested (66.7%) women (χ=6.35, P=0.012) made an informed choice. Measures of depression, stress, and anxiety were similar to population norms for ~85% of women. Decisional conflict and regret were generally low; however, decisional uncertainty and regret were greater in pregnant than nonpregnant women, and not-tested than tested women (uncertainty: χ=18.51, P<0.001 and χ=43.11, P<0.001, respectively; regret: χ=6.61, P<0.037 and χ=35.54, P<0.001, respectively).ConclusionWe provide evidence to inform guidelines that population FXS carrier screening can be implemented with minimal psychosocial harms following appropriate information and prescreening genetic counseling.