Against Colorectal Cancer in Our Neighborhoods, a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Targeting Low-Income Hispanics

Shokar, Navkiran K.; Byrd, Theresa; Lairson, David R.; Salaiz, Rebekah; Kim, Jung-Hyun; Calderón-Mora, Jessica; Nguyen, Norma; Ortiz, Melchor

doi:10.1177/1524839915587265

Cited by 20 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 40 studies 14–21,24–27,29,31–33,35–38,40–42,45,46,48,50,52,54–65 were conducted in the U.S., and 13 studies 22,23,28,30,34,39,43,44,47,49,51,53,66 were conducted in other high-income countries. 13 The U.S. studies were distributed in the following geographic regions: Northeast, 15,18,24,37,38,46,50,52,58,62,63 Southeast, 17,18,26,27,55,64,65 Midwest, 14,16,25,36,42,45,54 Southwest, 19,20,29,33,35,56,59–61 and West. 21,29–32,40,41,48,57 There were non-U.S. studies from Japan 22 and Spain 23 for breast cancer; from Japan 28 and Canada 30 for cervical cancer; and from Netherlands, 34,39 France, 47,49,53 Hong Kong, 51 South Korea, 66 and Italy 43,44 for colorectal cancer.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14–17,20–22,24,25,29–32,34–43,45–50,52–54,56–58,62,64,66 Most included cost-effectiveness analyses, reporting ICERs, 14–16,18,20–24,26,27,29–33,35–38,40,41,45,47,49,57,60,62,64–66 whereas some reported only cost estimates. 17,19,25,28,34,39,42–44,46,48,54–56,58,59,61 Only one study reported cost–benefit estimates. 63 Of the studies reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, the majority had comparators that did not receive an intervention (usual-care group).…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

Mohan

Chattopadhyay

Ekwueme

et al. 2019

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: The Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions. Evidence acquisition: A systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018. Evidence synthesis: Fifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI] =$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817. Conclusions: Multicomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

Mohan

Chattopadhyay

Ekwueme

et al. 2019

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…fecal occult blood testing, such as the FIT, which is available as an inexpensive and easy to use home kit. It is estimated that CRC screening could prevent about a third of the annual deaths; yet screening rates remain low, especially among the uninsured and underinsured populations (Shokar et al 2015). Furthermore, the CRC mortality rate declined in the past two decades as a result of screening, but it was in primarily white populations, and racial disparities persist (Green and Coronado 2014).…”

Section: Chapter II Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A different set of studies focused on the development of practical models for colorectal cancer screening and patient navigation for populations known to be at higher risk for CRC mortality or CRC late stage diagnosis (Bolen, Adams, and Shenson 2007;Escoffery et al 2015;Shokar et al 2015;Beyer et al 2016;Brenner et al 2016).…”

Section: Chapter II Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 2016), colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in the United States, and second leading cause of cancer mortality (Shokar et al 2015). For 2008 had the highest age-adjusted invasive CRC incidence rate (51.4, with a confidence interval (CI) of 50.5-52.3) per 100,000 persons, compared to the national rate of 41.9 (CI: 41.8-42.0).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Colorectal cancer FIT screening in the hope vi population of Jefferson County, Kentucky.

Stone¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using pre-post survey data collected from 209 randomly selected African American people from the population of former residents of Clarksdale and Sheppard Square public housing areas, this study explores the relationship between individual characteristics and colorectal cancer screening behavior, measured by the uptake of the Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) and by prior colorectal screening, while controlling for neighborhood factors and geographic proximity to healthcare facilities. This particular public housing population is of interest because of their relocation from the downtown area, where healthcare facilities are within walking distances, to other public housing units either in large apartment complexes or scattered throughout the county, or to units on the rental market. The framework used for this study is the Andersen's Healthcare Services Utilization Model, where variables are measured at individual and at census tract level. Analyses include descriptive and multivariate statistical techniques. Data are presented in tables, graphs, and choropleth maps. vi

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening

Mohan

Chattopadhyay

2020

JAMA Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.

show abstract

Against Colorectal Cancer in Our Neighborhoods, a Community-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program Targeting Low-Income Hispanics

Abstract: The detailed description of the development processes and costs of this health promotion program targeting low-income Hispanics will inform health program decision makers about the resource requirements for planning and developing new programs to reduce disease burden in communities.

Cited by 20 publications

References 36 publications

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

Economics of Multicomponent Interventions to Increase Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide Systematic Review

Colorectal cancer FIT screening in the hope vi population of Jefferson County, Kentucky.

Cost-effectiveness of Leveraging Social Determinants of Health to Improve Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About