Cancer Screening Test Use — United States, 2015

White, Arica; Thompson, Trevor; White, Mary C.; Sabatino, Susan A.; Moor, Janet de; Doria-Rose, V. Paul; Geiger, Ann M.; Richardson, Lisa C.

doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6608a1

Cited by 406 publications

(382 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

363

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Articles gathered during the search described research conducted in many countries around the world. Six studies were carried out in Brazil [13,14,15,16,17,18] and four in the United States [19,20,21,22] . There was only one article from each of the following countries: Argentina [23] , Australia [24] , Canada [25] , England [26] , Italy [27] , Malawi [28] , Zambia [29] and United Kingdom [30] .…”

Section: Characterizing the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of access to health services and of active search, as well as socio-demographic, economic and race differences between target populations, physical and structural barriers, and lack of health education and promotion were factors evidenced in three (3) Brazilian studies [13,17,16] , in three (3) American ones [20,21,22] , in one Canadian research [25] and in one Australian article [24] . One of the main crossroads in one of the Brazilian studies concerns services' structural accessibilities such as lack of gynecology outpatient clinics in all health services [13] .…”

Section: Following-up and Monitoring The Actions Takenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policies and Programs for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control in Public Health Services

Sperling¹,

Coser

2018

Int J Innov Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: analyzing and assessing the scientific evidences about Health Services Administration through the practice of cervical cancer prevention programs and policies. Methodology: integrative literature review carried out in September/October 2017. Electronic search for publications in databases such as PubMed, Portal Periódicos CAPES, BVS, EBSCO and SciELO. Results and Discussion: eighteen articles approaching the topic were selected and their analyses resulted in the following thematic axes: Organization of cervical cancer prevention and control policies/programs, Follow-up and monitoring of actions taken and Quality Management of Cytopathological exams for diagnostic and treatment. There were differences between programs in the country, either in their recommendations or in their effectiveness. Final considerations: investments must be done in order to qualify technical procedures and involved health professionals, as well as to support health education in the target population. Policies and Programs for

show abstract

Section: Characterizing the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Following-up and Monitoring The Actions Takenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policies and Programs for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control in Public Health Services

Sperling¹,

Coser

2018

Int J Innov Educ Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(6–8) Despite broad support for CRC screening, over one-third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened, and CRC remains the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. (9,10)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) reduces mortality, yet over one-third of age-eligible Americans are unscreened. Objective To examine the effect of a digital health intervention (mPATH-CRC) on rates of CRC screening. Design Randomized clinical trial. Setting Six community-based primary care practices. Participants 450 patients (223 mPATH-CRC, 227 usual care) scheduled for a primary care visit and due for routine CRC screening. Intervention An iPad app that displays a CRC screening decision aid, lets patients order their own screening tests, and sends automated follow-up electronic messages to support patients. Measurements Chart-verified completion of CRC screening within 24 weeks (primary outcome); ability to state a screening preference, intention to receive screening, screening discussions, and orders for screening tests (secondary outcomes). All outcome assessors were blinded to randomization arm. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and included 37% with limited health literacy and 53% with annual incomes < $20,000. CRC screening was completed by 30% of mPATH-CRC participants and 15% of those receiving usual care (logistic regression OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 – 4.0). Compared to usual care, more mPATH-CRC participants could state a screening preference, planned to be screened within 6 months, discussed screening with their provider, and had a screening test ordered. Half of mPATH-CRC participants (53%; 118 of 223) “self-ordered” a test via the program. Limitations Study was conducted among English-speaking individuals within a single healthcare system. Conclusions A digital health intervention that allows patients to “self-order” tests can increase receipt of CRC screening. Future research should identify methods for implementing similar interventions into clinical care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02088333) Primary Funding Source National Cancer Institute

show abstract

“…A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed that while overall CRC test use increased from 2000 to 2015, the nation still had not reached the HP2020 target for increasing CRC screening (White et al, 2017). Weir and colleagues used mortality data from the CDC’s National Vital Statistics System (NVSS, 2016) to predict a reduction of 22.5% in CRC death rate from 2007 to 2020 and that the HP2020 target for reducing the CRC death rate would be met in 2013 (Weir et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating health benefits and cost-savings for achieving the Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing invasive colorectal cancer

Hung

Ekwueme²,

White

et al. 2018

Preventive Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to quantify the aggregate potential life-years (LYs) saved and healthcare cost-savings if the Healthy People 2020 objective were met to reduce invasive colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence by 15%. We identified patients (n = 886,380) diagnosed with invasive CRC between 2001 and 2011 from a nationally representative cancer dataset. We stratified these patients by sex, race/ethnicity, and age. Using these data and data from the 2001–2011 U.S. life tables, we estimated a survival function for each CRC group and the corresponding reference group and computed per-person LYs saved. We estimated per-person annual healthcare cost-savings using the 2008–2012 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated aggregate LYs saved and cost-savings by multiplying the reduced number of CRC patients by the per-person LYs saved and lifetime healthcare cost-savings, respectively. We estimated an aggregate of 84,569 and 64,924 LYs saved for men and women, respectively, accounting for healthcare cost-savings of $329.3 and $294.2 million (in 2013$), respectively. Per person, we estimated 6.3 potential LYs saved related to those who developed CRC for both men and women, and healthcare cost-savings of $24,000 for men and $28,000 for women. Non-Hispanic whites and those aged 60–64 had the highest aggregate potential LYs saved and cost-savings. Achieving the HP2020 objective of reducing invasive CRC incidence by 15% by year 2020 would potentially save nearly 150,000 life-years and $624 million on healthcare costs.

show abstract

Cancer Screening Test Use — United States, 2015

Cited by 406 publications

References 4 publications

Policies and Programs for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control in Public Health Services

Policies and Programs for Cervical Cancer Prevention and Control in Public Health Services

Effect of a Digital Health Intervention on Receipt of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Patients

Estimating health benefits and cost-savings for achieving the Healthy People 2020 objective of reducing invasive colorectal cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About