Barriers to colonoscopy among New York City homeless

Marron, Thomas U.; Weiner, Amy; Rabiner, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.309

Cited by 4 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the 33 included articles, 3-7,10-12,16,17,22,24-45 25 (76%) were empirical studies, 6,7,[10][11][12]16,17,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]45 fi ve (15%) were case studies 3,5,[41][42][43] and three (9%) were commentaries. 4,22,44 Of the empirical studies, 12 (56%) were cross-sectional; fi ve of these were prospective 10,16,31,38,39 and seven were retrospective chart reviews. 6,7,25,26,30,34,36 Four empirical studies were cohort studies: two were prospective 12,45 and two were retrospective.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19,27 Th ree empirical studies employed multiple methods. 24,32,35 Th e majority (88%, n=29) of articles were from the U.S. 3,[5][6][7][10][11][12]16,17,22,[24][25][26][27][28][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][40][41][42]44,45 and, of the remaining articles, two were from Canada, 4,29 one from Australia, 43 and one from Northern Ireland. 39 Study settings were highly diverse.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Th e majority (79%, n=26) of studies consisted of recruitment at a single setting. 3,[5][6][7]10,16,17,[24][25][26]28,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] Th ese included mobile clinics, 24 shelter-based clinics, 10,16,17,26,34,37,42 community clinics, 30,38 university-based clinics, 28 hospitals, 3,5,6,41,43 homeless shelters, 35,39,44 respite care facilities, 7,31 Veterans Health Administration Medical Centers, 33,36 housing program sites, 37,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 33 studies, 21 were focused on the chronically homeless, particularly those who frequent shelters (64%, n=21). 3,5,7,10,12,16,17,[24][25][26][27][30][31][32]34,38,39,41,42,44,45 It was not clear which subset of the homeless were the focus of the remaining 12 articles. 4,6,11,22,28,29,33,[35][36][37]40,43 Most articles 5,6,[10][11][12]16,[24][25][26]28,[30][31][32][33]35,[37][38][39]…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[10][11][12]16,31,35 Th e remainder of articles were focused on multiple cancer types or cancer generally. Place in the cancer care journey, as defi ned by Cancer Care Ontario, an agency of the provincial Government of Ontario governed under the Canada's Cancer Act, 46 showed that the majority of articles focused on the screening stage [10][11][12]16,17,22,[24][25][26]29,[31][32][33][34][35][37][38][39]44,45 (61%, n=20), followed by end-of-life 3,4,40,41,43 (15%, n=5), prevention 27,28,36 (9%, n=3) and treatment 5,6 (6%, n=2). Th ree articles 7,30,42 (9%) addressed multiple stages in the cancer care journey.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Homelessness, Cancer and Health Literacy: A Scoping Review

Lawrie¹,

Charow²,

Giuliani³

et al. 2020

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within Canada, the homeless have four times the cancer rates of the general population, lower rates of screening, later stage diagnosis, and poorer outcomes. In the United States, disparities in cancer burden also exist between the homeless and the housed. For example, lung cancer deaths occur at double the rate for the homeless compared with the housed. Cancer care is complex and requires many high-order health literacy skills to obtain and understand the information needed to make informed decisions about cancer care. A scoping review was conducted to summarize what is known about, the homeless, cancer and health literacy. Th e literature search yielded 1,124 articles. Of these, 33 articles met eligibility criteria. Results suggest that low health literacy may have a signifi cant eff ect on access to cancer screening and care among the homeless population.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Homelessness, Cancer and Health Literacy: A Scoping Review

Lawrie¹,

Charow²,

Giuliani³

et al. 2020

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Homeless Patients

Schwartz

Abel

Lin

et al. 2022

Annals of Surgery Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients experiencing homelessness face a high burden of chronic disease, including colorectal cancer. Access to colonoscopy is limited by many structural barriers in this population. In an exemplar case, we describe the barriers encountered by a homeless patient with a history of colorectal cancer who was lost to follow up and presented 11 years later with a new primary colon cancer. We provide policy solutions to increase the use of primary and secondary screening, including essential private bathroom access for colonoscopy preparation in patients who had a positive screening or require surveillance after diagnosis and treatment. We believe that increasing early detection and treatment may be cost-effective and could reduce disparities in morbidity and mortality in homeless patients.

show abstract

Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates at Federally Qualified Health Centers From 2014 to 2022: Incomplete Recovery From COVID-19 and Worsening Disparities

Zhao,

Lei,

Aaronson

et al. 2024

Am J Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) provide preventive health services such as colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to low-income and underinsured individuals. Overall CRC screening participation in the United States declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovered by 2021; however, trends in underresourced settings are unknown. METHODS: Using Uniform Data System data from 2014 to 2022, we assessed trends in FQHC CRC screening rates nationally, in California, and in Los Angeles County and determined clinic-level factors associated with recent screening rate changes. For each FQHC, we calculated the screening rate change from 2019 to 2020, 2020 to 2021, and 2020 to 2022. We used mixed-effects linear regression to determine clinic-level characteristics associated with each screening rate change. RESULTS: Across all FQHC (n = 1,281), 7,016,181 patients were eligible for CRC screening in 2022. Across the United States and in California, median screening rates increased from 2014 to 2019, severely declined in 2020, and failed to return to prepandemic levels by 2022. Both nationally and in California, CRC screening declined most dramatically from 2019 to 2020 in FQHC serving majority Hispanic/Latino patients or a high proportion of patients experiencing homelessness. From 2020 to 2022, screening rates did not recover completely in US FQHC, with disproportionate recovery among FQHC serving majority non-Hispanic Black patients. DISCUSSION: CRC screening rates at FQHC did not return to prepandemic levels by 2022, and recovery varied by FQHC patient characteristics. Tailored interventions addressing low and decreasing CRC screening rates in FQHC are urgently needed to mitigate worsening CRC disparities.

show abstract

Barriers to colonoscopy among New York City homeless

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Homelessness, Cancer and Health Literacy: A Scoping Review

Homelessness, Cancer and Health Literacy: A Scoping Review

Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Homeless Patients

Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates at Federally Qualified Health Centers From 2014 to 2022: Incomplete Recovery From COVID-19 and Worsening Disparities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About