Online Program

326780
Results from Provider and Population Surveys of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Six States


Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Simone Peart Boyce, PhD, ICF International, Atlanta, GA
Marnie House, EdD, MPH, ICF International, Atlanta, GA
Amy DeGroff, PhD, MPH, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Michelle Revels, MA, Health Education and Social Programs, Division of Public Health and Survey Research, ICF International, Atlanta, GA
Sarah O'Dell, MPH, ICF International, Atlanta, GA
Djenaba Joseph, M.D., M.P.H., Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Janet Royalty, MS, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Marion Nadel, Ph.D., Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Faye Wong, MPH, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
introduction: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds 29 grantees to implement the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates and improve screening quality. This paper presents baseline data collected as part of an impact evaluation of the CRCCP.

methods:  In each of six states, a mailed survey was sent to a sample of primary care providers using a purchased list from the American Medical Association database, and a random-digit-dial telephone survey was conducted with adults ages 50+.  Both survey instruments measured perceptions of CRC screening; CRC screening knowledge, attitudes and behaviors; contextual factors that affect screening recommendations and test completion; and socio-demographics.

results: Provider respondents totaled 2,596 (43.5% response rate) and population respondents totaled 4,668 (34.5% response rate). Almost all population survey respondents (99%) were aware of CRC screening, but only 85% and 77% of respondents indicated having ever been screened and being up-to-date with screening, respectively. For respondents who indicated not being up-to-date, 58% reported never receiving a doctor’s recommendation for screening. Providers reported recommending multiple CRC screening modalities, including colonoscopy (98%) and stool blood tests (52% recommended guaiac-based FOBT; 41% recommended immunochemical FOBT/FIT). Although 66% of providers reported having provider reminder systems, only 43% reported having client reminder systems, and less than 30% reported receiving performance feedback reports for CRC screening. 

conclusions:  The CRCCP should focus on promoting the use of system-level strategies, such as provider and client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and other evidence-based strategies, to improve CRC screening.

Learning Areas:

Chronic disease management and prevention
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Provision of health care to the public
Public health or related research

Learning Objectives:
Discuss current provider knowledge, attitude, and behaviors related to colorectal cancer screening. Describe three health care provider-based strategies for improving colorectal cancer screening rates.

Keyword(s): Cancer Prevention and Screening, Evidence-Based Practice

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have been the principal investigator of multiple federally funded grants focusing on evaluation strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening rates among American adults ages 50 and older. For the past 15 years, I have evaluated clinical service delivery and use of evidence based strategies by state grantees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.