Video

Editor's Note: 

As we all strive to improve the rate of colorectal cancer screening, it is important to acknowledge that barriers exist that prevent screening uptake.

Importantly, these barriers often vary between specific population subsets. In this month’s In Focus article, brought to you by The New Gastroenterologist, the members of the AGA Institute Diversity Committee provide an enlightening overview of the barriers affecting underserved populations as well as strategies that can be employed to overcome these impediments. Better understanding of patient-specific barriers will, I hope, allow us to more effectively redress them and ultimately increase colorectal cancer screening rates in all populations.

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
Editor in Chief, The New Gastroenterologist

Despite the positive public health effects of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, there remains differential uptake of CRC screening in the United States. Minority populations born in the United States and immigrant populations are among those with the lowest rates of CRC screening, and both socioeconomic status and ethnicity are strongly associated with stage of CRC at diagnosis.^1,2 Thus, recognizing the economic, social, and cultural factors that result in low rates of CRC screening in underserved populations is important in order to devise targeted interventions to increase CRC uptake and reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations.

Vidyard Video

What are the facts and figures?

The overall rate of screening colonoscopies has increased in all ethnic groups in the past 10 years but still falls below the goal of 71% established by the Healthy People project (www.healthypeople.gov) for the year 2020.³ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ethnicity-specific data for U.S.-born populations, 60% of whites, 55% of African Americans (AA), 50% of American Indian/Alaskan natives (AI/AN), 46% of Latino Americans, and 47% of Asians undergo CRC screening (Figure 1A).⁴ While CRC incidence in non-Hispanic whites age 50 years and older has dropped by 32% since 2000 because of screening, this trend has not been observed in AAs.^5,6

The incidence of CRC in AAs is estimated at 49/10,000, one of the highest amongst U.S. populations and is the second and third most common cancer in AA women and men, respectively (Figure 1B).

Similar to AAs, AI/AN patients present with more advanced CRC disease and at younger ages and have lower survival rates, compared with other racial groups, a trend that has not changed in the last decade.⁷ CRC screening data in this population vary according to sex, geographic location, and health care utilization, with as few as 4.0% of asymptomatic, average-risk AI/ANs who receive medical care in the Indian Health Services being screened for CRC.⁸

The low rate of CRC screening among Latinos also poses a significant obstacle to the Healthy People project since it is expected that by 2060 Latinos will constitute 30% of the U.S. population. Therefore, strategies to improve CRC screening in this population are needed to continue the gains made in overall CRC mortality rates.

The percentage of immigrants in the U.S. population increased from 4.7% in 1970 to 13.5% in 2015. Immigrants, regardless of their ethnicity, represent a very vulnerable population, and CRC screening data in this population are not as robust as for U.S.-born groups. In general, immigrants have substantially lower CRC screening rates, compared with U.S.-born populations (21% vs. 60%),⁹ and it is suspected that additional, significant barriers to CRC screening and care exist for undocumented immigrants.

 

 

Another often overlooked group, are individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities. In this group, screening rates range from 49% to 65%.¹⁰

Finally, while information is available for many health care conditions and disparities faced by various ethnic groups, there are few CRC screening data for the LGBTQ community. Perhaps amplifying this problem is the existence of conflicting data in this population, with some studies suggesting there is no difference in CRC risk across groups in the LGBTQ community and others suggesting an increased risk.^11,12 Notably, sexual orientation has been identified as a positive predictor of CRC screening in gay and bisexual men – CRC screening rates are higher in these groups, compared with heterosexual men.¹³ In contrast, no such difference has been found between homosexual and heterosexual women.¹⁴

What are the barriers?

Several common themes contribute to disparities in CRC screening among minority groups, including psychosocial/cultural, socioeconomic, provider-specific, and insurance-related factors. Some patient-related barriers include issues of illiteracy, having poor health literacy or English proficiency, having only grade school education,^15,16 cultural misconceptions, transportation issues, difficulties affording copayments or deductibles, and a lack of follow-up for scheduled appointments and exams.^17-20 Poor health literacy has a profound effect on exam perceptions, fear of test results, and compliance with scheduling tests and bowel preparation instructions^21-25; it also affects one’s understanding of the importance of CRC screening, the recommended screening age, and the available choice of screening tests.

Even when some apparent barriers are mitigated, disparities in CRC screening remain. For example, even among the insured and among Medicare beneficiaries, screening rates and adequate follow-up rates after abnormal findings remain lower among AAs and those of low socioeconomic status than they are among whites.^26-28 At least part of this paradox results from the presence of unmeasured cultural/belief systems that affect CRC screening uptake. Some of these factors include fear and/or denial of CRC diagnoses, mistrust of the health care system, and reluctance to undergo medical treatment and surgery.^16,29 AAs are also less likely to be aware of a family history of CRC and to discuss personal and/or family history of CRC or polyps, which can thereby hinder the identification of high-risk individuals who would benefit from early screening.^15,30

The deeply rooted sense of fatalism also plays a crucial role and has been cited for many minority and immigrant populations. Fatalism leads patients to view a diagnosis of cancer as a matter of “fate” or “God’s will,” and therefore, it is to be endured.^23,31 Similarly, in a qualitative study of 44 Somali men living in St. Paul and Minneapolis, believing cancer was more common in whites, believing they were protected from cancer by God, fearing a cancer diagnosis, and fearing ostracism from their community were reported as barriers to cancer screening.³²

Perceptions about CRC screening methods in Latino populations also have a tremendous influence and can include fear, stigma of sexual prejudice, embarrassment of being exposed during the exam, worries about humiliation in a male sense of masculinity, a lack of trust in the medical professionals, a sense of being a “guinea pig” for physicians, concerns about health care racism, and expectations of pain.^33-37 Studies have reported that immigrants are afraid to seek health care because of the increasingly hostile environment associated with immigration enforcement.³⁸ In addition, the impending dissolution of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act is likely to augment the barriers to care for Latino groups.³⁹

In addition, provider-specific barriers to care also exist. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive recommendations for screening by their physician. In fact, this factor alone has been demonstrated to be the main reason for lack of screening among AAs in a Californian cohort.⁴⁰ In addition, patients from rural areas or those from AI/AN communities are at especially increased risk for lack of access to care because of a scarcity of providers along with patient perceptions regarding their primary care provider’s ability to connect them to subspecialists.^41-43 Other cited examples include misconceptions about and poor treatment of the LGBTQ population by health care providers/systems.⁴⁴

 

 

How can we intervene successfully?

Characterization of barriers is important because it promotes the development of targeted interventions. Intervention models include community engagement programs, incorporation of fecal occult testing, and patient navigator programs.^45-47 In response to the alarming disparity in CRC screening rates in Latino communities, several interventions have been set in motion in different clinical scenarios, which include patient navigation and a focus on patient education.

Patient navigators facilitate the screening process at different stages, including providing information that is easy to understand by patients, translating when patients are not proficient in English, addressing any concerns they may have about the procedure, and reminding patients about their appointments via phone calls or other means (Figure 2). Trials evaluating the effect of patient navigators in Hispanic populations have resulted in anywhere from a modest 11% to a robust 56% increase in screening.^48-50 In facilities serving a large number of Latino patients with low socioeconomic status, low-cost interventions, such as mailing information about CRC screening to all eligible patients, increased the screening rate from 12% to 28%.⁵¹ It has been shown that using bilingual and bicultural staff, language-appropriate material, and face-to-face encounters in a community setting helped recruit Chinese Americans into CRC screening trials.⁵² Similarly, an activation educational program consisting of a video and brochure that actively encouraged patients to ask their primary care physicians about CRC screening resulted in a 10% increase in screening rates.⁵³

Randomized trials have shown that outreach efforts and patient navigation increase CRC screening rates in AAs.^48,54,55 Studies evaluating the effects of print-based educational materials on improving screening showed improvement in screening rates, decreases in cancer-related fatalistic attitudes, and patients had a better understanding of the benefits of screening as compared with the cost associated with screening and the cost of advanced disease.⁵⁶ Similarly, the use of touch-screen computers that tailor informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers increased participation in CRC screening.⁵⁷ Including patient navigators along with printed education material was even more effective at increasing the proportion of patients getting colonoscopy screening than providing printed material alone, with more-intensive navigation needed for individuals with low literacy.⁵⁸ Grubbs et al.reported the success of their patient navigation program, which included wider comprehensive screening and coverage for colonoscopy screening.⁵⁹ In AAs, they estimated an annual reduction of CRC incidence and mortality of 4,200 and 2,700 patients, respectively.

Among immigrants, there is an increased likelihood of CRC screening in those immigrants with a higher number of primary care visits.⁶⁰ The intersection of culture, race, socioeconomic status, housing enclaves, limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and immigration policy all play a role in immigrant health and access to health care.⁶¹

Courtesy Aline Charabaty

Therefore, different strategies may be needed for each immigrant group to improve CRC screening. For this group of patients, efforts aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of national immigration policies on immigrant populations may have the additional consequence of improving health care access and CRC screening for these patients.

Data gaps still exist in our understanding of patient perceptions, perspectives, and barriers that present opportunities for further study to develop long-lasting interventions that will improve health care of underserved populations. By raising awareness of the barriers, physicians can enhance their own self-awareness to keenly be attuned to these challenges as patients cross their clinic threshold for medical care.

 

 

Additional resources link: www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/

References

1. Klabunde CN et al. Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Aug;20(8):1611-21.

2. Parikh-Patel A et al. Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988-2000. Cancer. 2006 Sep;107(5 Suppl):1189-95.

3. Promotion OoDPaH. Healthy People 2020. Cancer. Volume 2017.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer screening – United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Jan 27;61(3):41-5.

5. Doubeni CA et al. Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):184-91.

6. Kupfer SS et al. Reducing colorectal cancer risk among African Americans. Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1302-4.

7. Espey DK et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer. 2007 Nov;110(10):2119-52.

8. Day LW et al. Screening prevalence and incidence of colorectal cancer among American Indian/Alaskan natives in the Indian Health Service. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Jul;56(7):2104-13.

9. Gupta S et al. Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr;106(4):dju032.

10. Steele CB et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and screening – United States, 2008 and 2010. MMWR Suppl. 2013 Nov 22;62(3):53-60.

11. Boehmer U et al. Cancer survivorship and sexual orientation. Cancer 2011 Aug 15;117(16):3796-804.

12. Austin SB, Pazaris MJ, Wei EK, et al. Application of the Rosner-Wei risk-prediction model to estimate sexual orientation patterns in colon cancer risk in a prospective cohort of US women. Cancer Causes Control. 2014 Aug;25(8):999-1006.

13. Heslin KC et al. Sexual orientation and testing for prostate and colorectal cancers among men in California. Med Care. 2008 Dec;46(12):1240-8.

14. McElroy JA et al. Advancing Health Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients in Missouri. Mo Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;112(4):262-5.

15. Greiner KA et al. Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Nov;20(11):977-83.

16. Green PM, Kelly BA. Colorectal cancer knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors in African Americans. Cancer Nurs. 2004 May-Jun;27(3):206-15; quiz 216-7.

17. Berkowitz Z et al. Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Feb;56(2):307-14.

18. Dolan NC et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: Does literacy make a difference? J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul;22(13):2617-22.

19. Peterson NB et al. The influence of health literacy on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs and behavior. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Oct;99(10):1105-12.

20. Haddock MG et al. Intraoperative irradiation for locally recurrent colorectal cancer in previously irradiated patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1267-74.

21. Jones RM et al. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2010 May;38(5):508-16.

22. Basch CH et al. Screening colonoscopy bowel preparation: experience in an urban minority population. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;6(6):442-6.

23. Davis JL et al. Sociodemographic differences in fears and mistrust contributing to unwillingness to participate in cancer screenings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 Nov;23(4 Suppl):67-76.

24. Robinson CM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among publicly insured urban women: no knowledge of tests and no clinician recommendation. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011 Aug;103(8):746-53.

25. Goldman RE et al. Perspectives of colorectal cancer risk and screening among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans: Stigma and misperceptions. Qual Health Res. 2009 Nov;19(11):1559-68.

26. Laiyemo AO et al. Race and colorectal cancer disparities: Health-care utilization vs different cancer susceptibilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Apr 21;102(8):538-46.

27. White A et al. Racial disparities and treatment trends in a large cohort of elderly African Americans and Caucasians with colorectal cancer, 1991 to 2002. Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12):3400-9.

28. Doubeni CA et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population – A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36392.

29. Tammana VS, Laiyemo AO. Colorectal cancer disparities: Issues, controversies and solutions. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan 28;20(4):869-76.

30. Carethers JM. Screening for colorectal cancer in African Americans: determinants and rationale for an earlier age to commence screening. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Mar;60(3):711-21.

31. Miranda-Diaz C et al. Barriers for Compliance to Breast, Colorectal, and Cervical Screening Cancer Tests among Hispanic Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Dec 22;13(1):ijerph13010021.

32. Sewali B et al. Understanding cancer screening service utilization by Somali men in Minnesota. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Jun;17(3):773-80.

 

 

33. Walsh JM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Latino and Vietnamese Americans. Compared with non-Latino white Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Feb;19(2):156-66.

34. Perez-Stable EJ et al. Self-reported use of cancer screening tests among Latinos and Anglos in a prepaid health plan. Arch Intern Med. 1994 May 23;154(10):1073-81.

35. Shariff-Marco S et al. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported racism and its association with cancer-related health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2010 Feb;100(2):364-74.

36. Powe BD et al. Comparing knowledge of colorectal and prostate cancer among African American and Hispanic men. Cancer Nurs. 2009 Sep-Oct;32(5):412-7.

37. Jun J, Oh KM. Asian and Hispanic Americans’ cancer fatalism and colon cancer screening. Am J Health Behav. 2013 Mar;37(2):145-54.

38. Hacker K et al. The impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on immigrant health: Perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):586-94.

39. Firger J. Rescinding DACA could spur a public health crisis, from lost services to higher rates of depression, substance abuse. Newsweek.

40. May FP et al. Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1388-94.

41. Levy BT et al. Why hasn’t this patient been screened for colon cancer? An Iowa Research Network study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;20(5):458-68.

42. Rosenblatt RA. A view from the periphery – health care in rural America. N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 9;351(11):1049-51.

43. Young WF et al. Predictors of colorectal screening in rural Colorado: testing to prevent colon cancer in the high plains research network. J Rural Health. 2007 Summer;23(3):238-45.

44. Kates J et al. Health and Access to Care and Coverage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Individuals in the U.S. In: Foundation KF, ed. Disparities Policy Issue Brief. Volume 2017; Aug 30, 2017.

45. Katz ML et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening by using community volunteers: results of the Carolinas cancer education and screening (CARES) project. Cancer. 2007 Oct 1;110(7):1602-10.

46. Jean-Jacques M et al. Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):412-7.

47. Reuland DS et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jul 1;177(7):967-74.

48. Percac-Lima S et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7.

49. Nash D et al. Evaluation of an intervention to increase screening colonoscopy in an urban public hospital setting. J Urban Health. 2006 Mar;83(2):231-43.

50. Lebwohl B et al. Effect of a patient navigator program on the volume and quality of colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 May-Jun;45(5):e47-53.

51. Khankari K et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved: A pilot study within a federally qualified health center. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Oct;22(10):1410-4.

52. Wang JH et al. Recruiting Chinese Americans into cancer screening intervention trials: Strategies and outcomes. Clin Trials. 2014 Apr;11(2):167-77.

53. Katz ML et al. Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jan;21(1):45-52.

54. Ford ME et al. Enhancing adherence among older African American men enrolled in a longitudinal cancer screening trial. Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):545-50.

55. Christie J et al. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008 Mar;100(3):278-84.

56. Philip EJ et al. Evaluating the impact of an educational intervention to increase CRC screening rates in the African American community: A preliminary study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Oct;21(10):1685-91.

57. Greiner KA et al. Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: A randomized trial in safety-net clinics. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Dec;47(6):703-14.

58. Horne HN et al. Effect of patient navigation on colorectal cancer screening in a community-based randomized controlled trial of urban African American adults. Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Feb;26(2):239-46.

59. Grubbs SS et al. Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: It took a village. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 1;31(16):1928-30.

60. Jung MY et al. The Chinese and Korean American immigrant experience: a mixed-methods examination of facilitators and barriers of colorectal cancer screening. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb 25:1-20.

61. Viruell-Fuentes EA et al. More than culture: structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(12):2099-106.

Dr. Oduyebo is a third-year fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Dr. Malespin is an assistant professor in the department of medicine and the medical director of hepatology at the University of Florida Health, Jacksonville; Dr. Mendoza Ladd is an assistant professor of medicine at Texas Tech University, El Paso; Dr. Day is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco; Dr. Charabaty is an associate professor of medicine and the director of the IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology at Medstar-Georgetown University Center, Washington; Dr. Chen is an associate professor of medicine, the director of patient safety and quality, and the director of the small-bowel endoscopy program in division of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis; Dr. Carr is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Dr. Quezada is an assistant dean for admissions, an assistant dean for academic and multicultural affairs, and an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Dr. Lamousé-Smith is a director of translational medicine, immunology, and early development at Janssen Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Spring House, Penn.

Editor's Note: 

As we all strive to improve the rate of colorectal cancer screening, it is important to acknowledge that barriers exist that prevent screening uptake.

Importantly, these barriers often vary between specific population subsets. In this month’s In Focus article, brought to you by The New Gastroenterologist, the members of the AGA Institute Diversity Committee provide an enlightening overview of the barriers affecting underserved populations as well as strategies that can be employed to overcome these impediments. Better understanding of patient-specific barriers will, I hope, allow us to more effectively redress them and ultimately increase colorectal cancer screening rates in all populations.

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
Editor in Chief, The New Gastroenterologist

Despite the positive public health effects of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, there remains differential uptake of CRC screening in the United States. Minority populations born in the United States and immigrant populations are among those with the lowest rates of CRC screening, and both socioeconomic status and ethnicity are strongly associated with stage of CRC at diagnosis.^1,2 Thus, recognizing the economic, social, and cultural factors that result in low rates of CRC screening in underserved populations is important in order to devise targeted interventions to increase CRC uptake and reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations.

Vidyard Video

What are the facts and figures?

The overall rate of screening colonoscopies has increased in all ethnic groups in the past 10 years but still falls below the goal of 71% established by the Healthy People project (www.healthypeople.gov) for the year 2020.³ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ethnicity-specific data for U.S.-born populations, 60% of whites, 55% of African Americans (AA), 50% of American Indian/Alaskan natives (AI/AN), 46% of Latino Americans, and 47% of Asians undergo CRC screening (Figure 1A).⁴ While CRC incidence in non-Hispanic whites age 50 years and older has dropped by 32% since 2000 because of screening, this trend has not been observed in AAs.^5,6

The incidence of CRC in AAs is estimated at 49/10,000, one of the highest amongst U.S. populations and is the second and third most common cancer in AA women and men, respectively (Figure 1B).

Similar to AAs, AI/AN patients present with more advanced CRC disease and at younger ages and have lower survival rates, compared with other racial groups, a trend that has not changed in the last decade.⁷ CRC screening data in this population vary according to sex, geographic location, and health care utilization, with as few as 4.0% of asymptomatic, average-risk AI/ANs who receive medical care in the Indian Health Services being screened for CRC.⁸

The low rate of CRC screening among Latinos also poses a significant obstacle to the Healthy People project since it is expected that by 2060 Latinos will constitute 30% of the U.S. population. Therefore, strategies to improve CRC screening in this population are needed to continue the gains made in overall CRC mortality rates.

The percentage of immigrants in the U.S. population increased from 4.7% in 1970 to 13.5% in 2015. Immigrants, regardless of their ethnicity, represent a very vulnerable population, and CRC screening data in this population are not as robust as for U.S.-born groups. In general, immigrants have substantially lower CRC screening rates, compared with U.S.-born populations (21% vs. 60%),⁹ and it is suspected that additional, significant barriers to CRC screening and care exist for undocumented immigrants.

 

 

Another often overlooked group, are individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities. In this group, screening rates range from 49% to 65%.¹⁰

Finally, while information is available for many health care conditions and disparities faced by various ethnic groups, there are few CRC screening data for the LGBTQ community. Perhaps amplifying this problem is the existence of conflicting data in this population, with some studies suggesting there is no difference in CRC risk across groups in the LGBTQ community and others suggesting an increased risk.^11,12 Notably, sexual orientation has been identified as a positive predictor of CRC screening in gay and bisexual men – CRC screening rates are higher in these groups, compared with heterosexual men.¹³ In contrast, no such difference has been found between homosexual and heterosexual women.¹⁴

What are the barriers?

Several common themes contribute to disparities in CRC screening among minority groups, including psychosocial/cultural, socioeconomic, provider-specific, and insurance-related factors. Some patient-related barriers include issues of illiteracy, having poor health literacy or English proficiency, having only grade school education,^15,16 cultural misconceptions, transportation issues, difficulties affording copayments or deductibles, and a lack of follow-up for scheduled appointments and exams.^17-20 Poor health literacy has a profound effect on exam perceptions, fear of test results, and compliance with scheduling tests and bowel preparation instructions^21-25; it also affects one’s understanding of the importance of CRC screening, the recommended screening age, and the available choice of screening tests.

Even when some apparent barriers are mitigated, disparities in CRC screening remain. For example, even among the insured and among Medicare beneficiaries, screening rates and adequate follow-up rates after abnormal findings remain lower among AAs and those of low socioeconomic status than they are among whites.^26-28 At least part of this paradox results from the presence of unmeasured cultural/belief systems that affect CRC screening uptake. Some of these factors include fear and/or denial of CRC diagnoses, mistrust of the health care system, and reluctance to undergo medical treatment and surgery.^16,29 AAs are also less likely to be aware of a family history of CRC and to discuss personal and/or family history of CRC or polyps, which can thereby hinder the identification of high-risk individuals who would benefit from early screening.^15,30

The deeply rooted sense of fatalism also plays a crucial role and has been cited for many minority and immigrant populations. Fatalism leads patients to view a diagnosis of cancer as a matter of “fate” or “God’s will,” and therefore, it is to be endured.^23,31 Similarly, in a qualitative study of 44 Somali men living in St. Paul and Minneapolis, believing cancer was more common in whites, believing they were protected from cancer by God, fearing a cancer diagnosis, and fearing ostracism from their community were reported as barriers to cancer screening.³²

Perceptions about CRC screening methods in Latino populations also have a tremendous influence and can include fear, stigma of sexual prejudice, embarrassment of being exposed during the exam, worries about humiliation in a male sense of masculinity, a lack of trust in the medical professionals, a sense of being a “guinea pig” for physicians, concerns about health care racism, and expectations of pain.^33-37 Studies have reported that immigrants are afraid to seek health care because of the increasingly hostile environment associated with immigration enforcement.³⁸ In addition, the impending dissolution of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act is likely to augment the barriers to care for Latino groups.³⁹

In addition, provider-specific barriers to care also exist. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive recommendations for screening by their physician. In fact, this factor alone has been demonstrated to be the main reason for lack of screening among AAs in a Californian cohort.⁴⁰ In addition, patients from rural areas or those from AI/AN communities are at especially increased risk for lack of access to care because of a scarcity of providers along with patient perceptions regarding their primary care provider’s ability to connect them to subspecialists.^41-43 Other cited examples include misconceptions about and poor treatment of the LGBTQ population by health care providers/systems.⁴⁴

 

 

How can we intervene successfully?

Characterization of barriers is important because it promotes the development of targeted interventions. Intervention models include community engagement programs, incorporation of fecal occult testing, and patient navigator programs.^45-47 In response to the alarming disparity in CRC screening rates in Latino communities, several interventions have been set in motion in different clinical scenarios, which include patient navigation and a focus on patient education.

Patient navigators facilitate the screening process at different stages, including providing information that is easy to understand by patients, translating when patients are not proficient in English, addressing any concerns they may have about the procedure, and reminding patients about their appointments via phone calls or other means (Figure 2). Trials evaluating the effect of patient navigators in Hispanic populations have resulted in anywhere from a modest 11% to a robust 56% increase in screening.^48-50 In facilities serving a large number of Latino patients with low socioeconomic status, low-cost interventions, such as mailing information about CRC screening to all eligible patients, increased the screening rate from 12% to 28%.⁵¹ It has been shown that using bilingual and bicultural staff, language-appropriate material, and face-to-face encounters in a community setting helped recruit Chinese Americans into CRC screening trials.⁵² Similarly, an activation educational program consisting of a video and brochure that actively encouraged patients to ask their primary care physicians about CRC screening resulted in a 10% increase in screening rates.⁵³

Randomized trials have shown that outreach efforts and patient navigation increase CRC screening rates in AAs.^48,54,55 Studies evaluating the effects of print-based educational materials on improving screening showed improvement in screening rates, decreases in cancer-related fatalistic attitudes, and patients had a better understanding of the benefits of screening as compared with the cost associated with screening and the cost of advanced disease.⁵⁶ Similarly, the use of touch-screen computers that tailor informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers increased participation in CRC screening.⁵⁷ Including patient navigators along with printed education material was even more effective at increasing the proportion of patients getting colonoscopy screening than providing printed material alone, with more-intensive navigation needed for individuals with low literacy.⁵⁸ Grubbs et al.reported the success of their patient navigation program, which included wider comprehensive screening and coverage for colonoscopy screening.⁵⁹ In AAs, they estimated an annual reduction of CRC incidence and mortality of 4,200 and 2,700 patients, respectively.

Among immigrants, there is an increased likelihood of CRC screening in those immigrants with a higher number of primary care visits.⁶⁰ The intersection of culture, race, socioeconomic status, housing enclaves, limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and immigration policy all play a role in immigrant health and access to health care.⁶¹

Courtesy Aline Charabaty

Therefore, different strategies may be needed for each immigrant group to improve CRC screening. For this group of patients, efforts aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of national immigration policies on immigrant populations may have the additional consequence of improving health care access and CRC screening for these patients.

Data gaps still exist in our understanding of patient perceptions, perspectives, and barriers that present opportunities for further study to develop long-lasting interventions that will improve health care of underserved populations. By raising awareness of the barriers, physicians can enhance their own self-awareness to keenly be attuned to these challenges as patients cross their clinic threshold for medical care.

 

 

Additional resources link: www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/

References

1. Klabunde CN et al. Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Aug;20(8):1611-21.

2. Parikh-Patel A et al. Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988-2000. Cancer. 2006 Sep;107(5 Suppl):1189-95.

3. Promotion OoDPaH. Healthy People 2020. Cancer. Volume 2017.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer screening – United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Jan 27;61(3):41-5.

5. Doubeni CA et al. Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):184-91.

6. Kupfer SS et al. Reducing colorectal cancer risk among African Americans. Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1302-4.

7. Espey DK et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer. 2007 Nov;110(10):2119-52.

8. Day LW et al. Screening prevalence and incidence of colorectal cancer among American Indian/Alaskan natives in the Indian Health Service. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Jul;56(7):2104-13.

9. Gupta S et al. Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr;106(4):dju032.

10. Steele CB et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and screening – United States, 2008 and 2010. MMWR Suppl. 2013 Nov 22;62(3):53-60.

11. Boehmer U et al. Cancer survivorship and sexual orientation. Cancer 2011 Aug 15;117(16):3796-804.

12. Austin SB, Pazaris MJ, Wei EK, et al. Application of the Rosner-Wei risk-prediction model to estimate sexual orientation patterns in colon cancer risk in a prospective cohort of US women. Cancer Causes Control. 2014 Aug;25(8):999-1006.

13. Heslin KC et al. Sexual orientation and testing for prostate and colorectal cancers among men in California. Med Care. 2008 Dec;46(12):1240-8.

14. McElroy JA et al. Advancing Health Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients in Missouri. Mo Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;112(4):262-5.

15. Greiner KA et al. Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Nov;20(11):977-83.

16. Green PM, Kelly BA. Colorectal cancer knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors in African Americans. Cancer Nurs. 2004 May-Jun;27(3):206-15; quiz 216-7.

17. Berkowitz Z et al. Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Feb;56(2):307-14.

18. Dolan NC et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: Does literacy make a difference? J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul;22(13):2617-22.

19. Peterson NB et al. The influence of health literacy on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs and behavior. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Oct;99(10):1105-12.

20. Haddock MG et al. Intraoperative irradiation for locally recurrent colorectal cancer in previously irradiated patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1267-74.

21. Jones RM et al. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2010 May;38(5):508-16.

22. Basch CH et al. Screening colonoscopy bowel preparation: experience in an urban minority population. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;6(6):442-6.

23. Davis JL et al. Sociodemographic differences in fears and mistrust contributing to unwillingness to participate in cancer screenings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 Nov;23(4 Suppl):67-76.

24. Robinson CM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among publicly insured urban women: no knowledge of tests and no clinician recommendation. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011 Aug;103(8):746-53.

25. Goldman RE et al. Perspectives of colorectal cancer risk and screening among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans: Stigma and misperceptions. Qual Health Res. 2009 Nov;19(11):1559-68.

26. Laiyemo AO et al. Race and colorectal cancer disparities: Health-care utilization vs different cancer susceptibilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Apr 21;102(8):538-46.

27. White A et al. Racial disparities and treatment trends in a large cohort of elderly African Americans and Caucasians with colorectal cancer, 1991 to 2002. Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12):3400-9.

28. Doubeni CA et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population – A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36392.

29. Tammana VS, Laiyemo AO. Colorectal cancer disparities: Issues, controversies and solutions. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan 28;20(4):869-76.

30. Carethers JM. Screening for colorectal cancer in African Americans: determinants and rationale for an earlier age to commence screening. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Mar;60(3):711-21.

31. Miranda-Diaz C et al. Barriers for Compliance to Breast, Colorectal, and Cervical Screening Cancer Tests among Hispanic Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Dec 22;13(1):ijerph13010021.

32. Sewali B et al. Understanding cancer screening service utilization by Somali men in Minnesota. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Jun;17(3):773-80.

 

 

33. Walsh JM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Latino and Vietnamese Americans. Compared with non-Latino white Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Feb;19(2):156-66.

34. Perez-Stable EJ et al. Self-reported use of cancer screening tests among Latinos and Anglos in a prepaid health plan. Arch Intern Med. 1994 May 23;154(10):1073-81.

35. Shariff-Marco S et al. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported racism and its association with cancer-related health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2010 Feb;100(2):364-74.

36. Powe BD et al. Comparing knowledge of colorectal and prostate cancer among African American and Hispanic men. Cancer Nurs. 2009 Sep-Oct;32(5):412-7.

37. Jun J, Oh KM. Asian and Hispanic Americans’ cancer fatalism and colon cancer screening. Am J Health Behav. 2013 Mar;37(2):145-54.

38. Hacker K et al. The impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on immigrant health: Perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):586-94.

39. Firger J. Rescinding DACA could spur a public health crisis, from lost services to higher rates of depression, substance abuse. Newsweek.

40. May FP et al. Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1388-94.

41. Levy BT et al. Why hasn’t this patient been screened for colon cancer? An Iowa Research Network study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;20(5):458-68.

42. Rosenblatt RA. A view from the periphery – health care in rural America. N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 9;351(11):1049-51.

43. Young WF et al. Predictors of colorectal screening in rural Colorado: testing to prevent colon cancer in the high plains research network. J Rural Health. 2007 Summer;23(3):238-45.

44. Kates J et al. Health and Access to Care and Coverage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Individuals in the U.S. In: Foundation KF, ed. Disparities Policy Issue Brief. Volume 2017; Aug 30, 2017.

45. Katz ML et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening by using community volunteers: results of the Carolinas cancer education and screening (CARES) project. Cancer. 2007 Oct 1;110(7):1602-10.

46. Jean-Jacques M et al. Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):412-7.

47. Reuland DS et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jul 1;177(7):967-74.

48. Percac-Lima S et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7.

49. Nash D et al. Evaluation of an intervention to increase screening colonoscopy in an urban public hospital setting. J Urban Health. 2006 Mar;83(2):231-43.

50. Lebwohl B et al. Effect of a patient navigator program on the volume and quality of colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 May-Jun;45(5):e47-53.

51. Khankari K et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved: A pilot study within a federally qualified health center. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Oct;22(10):1410-4.

52. Wang JH et al. Recruiting Chinese Americans into cancer screening intervention trials: Strategies and outcomes. Clin Trials. 2014 Apr;11(2):167-77.

53. Katz ML et al. Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jan;21(1):45-52.

54. Ford ME et al. Enhancing adherence among older African American men enrolled in a longitudinal cancer screening trial. Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):545-50.

55. Christie J et al. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008 Mar;100(3):278-84.

56. Philip EJ et al. Evaluating the impact of an educational intervention to increase CRC screening rates in the African American community: A preliminary study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Oct;21(10):1685-91.

57. Greiner KA et al. Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: A randomized trial in safety-net clinics. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Dec;47(6):703-14.

58. Horne HN et al. Effect of patient navigation on colorectal cancer screening in a community-based randomized controlled trial of urban African American adults. Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Feb;26(2):239-46.

59. Grubbs SS et al. Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: It took a village. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 1;31(16):1928-30.

60. Jung MY et al. The Chinese and Korean American immigrant experience: a mixed-methods examination of facilitators and barriers of colorectal cancer screening. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb 25:1-20.

61. Viruell-Fuentes EA et al. More than culture: structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(12):2099-106.

Dr. Oduyebo is a third-year fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Dr. Malespin is an assistant professor in the department of medicine and the medical director of hepatology at the University of Florida Health, Jacksonville; Dr. Mendoza Ladd is an assistant professor of medicine at Texas Tech University, El Paso; Dr. Day is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco; Dr. Charabaty is an associate professor of medicine and the director of the IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology at Medstar-Georgetown University Center, Washington; Dr. Chen is an associate professor of medicine, the director of patient safety and quality, and the director of the small-bowel endoscopy program in division of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis; Dr. Carr is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Dr. Quezada is an assistant dean for admissions, an assistant dean for academic and multicultural affairs, and an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Dr. Lamousé-Smith is a director of translational medicine, immunology, and early development at Janssen Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Spring House, Penn.

Editor's Note: 

As we all strive to improve the rate of colorectal cancer screening, it is important to acknowledge that barriers exist that prevent screening uptake.

Importantly, these barriers often vary between specific population subsets. In this month’s In Focus article, brought to you by The New Gastroenterologist, the members of the AGA Institute Diversity Committee provide an enlightening overview of the barriers affecting underserved populations as well as strategies that can be employed to overcome these impediments. Better understanding of patient-specific barriers will, I hope, allow us to more effectively redress them and ultimately increase colorectal cancer screening rates in all populations.

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
Editor in Chief, The New Gastroenterologist

Despite the positive public health effects of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, there remains differential uptake of CRC screening in the United States. Minority populations born in the United States and immigrant populations are among those with the lowest rates of CRC screening, and both socioeconomic status and ethnicity are strongly associated with stage of CRC at diagnosis.^1,2 Thus, recognizing the economic, social, and cultural factors that result in low rates of CRC screening in underserved populations is important in order to devise targeted interventions to increase CRC uptake and reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations.

Vidyard Video

What are the facts and figures?

The overall rate of screening colonoscopies has increased in all ethnic groups in the past 10 years but still falls below the goal of 71% established by the Healthy People project (www.healthypeople.gov) for the year 2020.³ According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ethnicity-specific data for U.S.-born populations, 60% of whites, 55% of African Americans (AA), 50% of American Indian/Alaskan natives (AI/AN), 46% of Latino Americans, and 47% of Asians undergo CRC screening (Figure 1A).⁴ While CRC incidence in non-Hispanic whites age 50 years and older has dropped by 32% since 2000 because of screening, this trend has not been observed in AAs.^5,6

The incidence of CRC in AAs is estimated at 49/10,000, one of the highest amongst U.S. populations and is the second and third most common cancer in AA women and men, respectively (Figure 1B).

Similar to AAs, AI/AN patients present with more advanced CRC disease and at younger ages and have lower survival rates, compared with other racial groups, a trend that has not changed in the last decade.⁷ CRC screening data in this population vary according to sex, geographic location, and health care utilization, with as few as 4.0% of asymptomatic, average-risk AI/ANs who receive medical care in the Indian Health Services being screened for CRC.⁸

The low rate of CRC screening among Latinos also poses a significant obstacle to the Healthy People project since it is expected that by 2060 Latinos will constitute 30% of the U.S. population. Therefore, strategies to improve CRC screening in this population are needed to continue the gains made in overall CRC mortality rates.

The percentage of immigrants in the U.S. population increased from 4.7% in 1970 to 13.5% in 2015. Immigrants, regardless of their ethnicity, represent a very vulnerable population, and CRC screening data in this population are not as robust as for U.S.-born groups. In general, immigrants have substantially lower CRC screening rates, compared with U.S.-born populations (21% vs. 60%),⁹ and it is suspected that additional, significant barriers to CRC screening and care exist for undocumented immigrants.

 

 

Another often overlooked group, are individuals with physical or cognitive disabilities. In this group, screening rates range from 49% to 65%.¹⁰

Finally, while information is available for many health care conditions and disparities faced by various ethnic groups, there are few CRC screening data for the LGBTQ community. Perhaps amplifying this problem is the existence of conflicting data in this population, with some studies suggesting there is no difference in CRC risk across groups in the LGBTQ community and others suggesting an increased risk.^11,12 Notably, sexual orientation has been identified as a positive predictor of CRC screening in gay and bisexual men – CRC screening rates are higher in these groups, compared with heterosexual men.¹³ In contrast, no such difference has been found between homosexual and heterosexual women.¹⁴

What are the barriers?

Several common themes contribute to disparities in CRC screening among minority groups, including psychosocial/cultural, socioeconomic, provider-specific, and insurance-related factors. Some patient-related barriers include issues of illiteracy, having poor health literacy or English proficiency, having only grade school education,^15,16 cultural misconceptions, transportation issues, difficulties affording copayments or deductibles, and a lack of follow-up for scheduled appointments and exams.^17-20 Poor health literacy has a profound effect on exam perceptions, fear of test results, and compliance with scheduling tests and bowel preparation instructions^21-25; it also affects one’s understanding of the importance of CRC screening, the recommended screening age, and the available choice of screening tests.

Even when some apparent barriers are mitigated, disparities in CRC screening remain. For example, even among the insured and among Medicare beneficiaries, screening rates and adequate follow-up rates after abnormal findings remain lower among AAs and those of low socioeconomic status than they are among whites.^26-28 At least part of this paradox results from the presence of unmeasured cultural/belief systems that affect CRC screening uptake. Some of these factors include fear and/or denial of CRC diagnoses, mistrust of the health care system, and reluctance to undergo medical treatment and surgery.^16,29 AAs are also less likely to be aware of a family history of CRC and to discuss personal and/or family history of CRC or polyps, which can thereby hinder the identification of high-risk individuals who would benefit from early screening.^15,30

The deeply rooted sense of fatalism also plays a crucial role and has been cited for many minority and immigrant populations. Fatalism leads patients to view a diagnosis of cancer as a matter of “fate” or “God’s will,” and therefore, it is to be endured.^23,31 Similarly, in a qualitative study of 44 Somali men living in St. Paul and Minneapolis, believing cancer was more common in whites, believing they were protected from cancer by God, fearing a cancer diagnosis, and fearing ostracism from their community were reported as barriers to cancer screening.³²

Perceptions about CRC screening methods in Latino populations also have a tremendous influence and can include fear, stigma of sexual prejudice, embarrassment of being exposed during the exam, worries about humiliation in a male sense of masculinity, a lack of trust in the medical professionals, a sense of being a “guinea pig” for physicians, concerns about health care racism, and expectations of pain.^33-37 Studies have reported that immigrants are afraid to seek health care because of the increasingly hostile environment associated with immigration enforcement.³⁸ In addition, the impending dissolution of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals act is likely to augment the barriers to care for Latino groups.³⁹

In addition, provider-specific barriers to care also exist. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely than whites to receive recommendations for screening by their physician. In fact, this factor alone has been demonstrated to be the main reason for lack of screening among AAs in a Californian cohort.⁴⁰ In addition, patients from rural areas or those from AI/AN communities are at especially increased risk for lack of access to care because of a scarcity of providers along with patient perceptions regarding their primary care provider’s ability to connect them to subspecialists.^41-43 Other cited examples include misconceptions about and poor treatment of the LGBTQ population by health care providers/systems.⁴⁴

 

 

How can we intervene successfully?

Characterization of barriers is important because it promotes the development of targeted interventions. Intervention models include community engagement programs, incorporation of fecal occult testing, and patient navigator programs.^45-47 In response to the alarming disparity in CRC screening rates in Latino communities, several interventions have been set in motion in different clinical scenarios, which include patient navigation and a focus on patient education.

Patient navigators facilitate the screening process at different stages, including providing information that is easy to understand by patients, translating when patients are not proficient in English, addressing any concerns they may have about the procedure, and reminding patients about their appointments via phone calls or other means (Figure 2). Trials evaluating the effect of patient navigators in Hispanic populations have resulted in anywhere from a modest 11% to a robust 56% increase in screening.^48-50 In facilities serving a large number of Latino patients with low socioeconomic status, low-cost interventions, such as mailing information about CRC screening to all eligible patients, increased the screening rate from 12% to 28%.⁵¹ It has been shown that using bilingual and bicultural staff, language-appropriate material, and face-to-face encounters in a community setting helped recruit Chinese Americans into CRC screening trials.⁵² Similarly, an activation educational program consisting of a video and brochure that actively encouraged patients to ask their primary care physicians about CRC screening resulted in a 10% increase in screening rates.⁵³

Randomized trials have shown that outreach efforts and patient navigation increase CRC screening rates in AAs.^48,54,55 Studies evaluating the effects of print-based educational materials on improving screening showed improvement in screening rates, decreases in cancer-related fatalistic attitudes, and patients had a better understanding of the benefits of screening as compared with the cost associated with screening and the cost of advanced disease.⁵⁶ Similarly, the use of touch-screen computers that tailor informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers increased participation in CRC screening.⁵⁷ Including patient navigators along with printed education material was even more effective at increasing the proportion of patients getting colonoscopy screening than providing printed material alone, with more-intensive navigation needed for individuals with low literacy.⁵⁸ Grubbs et al.reported the success of their patient navigation program, which included wider comprehensive screening and coverage for colonoscopy screening.⁵⁹ In AAs, they estimated an annual reduction of CRC incidence and mortality of 4,200 and 2,700 patients, respectively.

Among immigrants, there is an increased likelihood of CRC screening in those immigrants with a higher number of primary care visits.⁶⁰ The intersection of culture, race, socioeconomic status, housing enclaves, limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and immigration policy all play a role in immigrant health and access to health care.⁶¹

Courtesy Aline Charabaty

Therefore, different strategies may be needed for each immigrant group to improve CRC screening. For this group of patients, efforts aimed at mitigating the adverse effects of national immigration policies on immigrant populations may have the additional consequence of improving health care access and CRC screening for these patients.

Data gaps still exist in our understanding of patient perceptions, perspectives, and barriers that present opportunities for further study to develop long-lasting interventions that will improve health care of underserved populations. By raising awareness of the barriers, physicians can enhance their own self-awareness to keenly be attuned to these challenges as patients cross their clinic threshold for medical care.

 

 

Additional resources link: www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/

References

1. Klabunde CN et al. Trends in colorectal cancer test use among vulnerable populations in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011 Aug;20(8):1611-21.

2. Parikh-Patel A et al. Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988-2000. Cancer. 2006 Sep;107(5 Suppl):1189-95.

3. Promotion OoDPaH. Healthy People 2020. Cancer. Volume 2017.

4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer screening – United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012 Jan 27;61(3):41-5.

5. Doubeni CA et al. Racial and ethnic trends of colorectal cancer screening among Medicare enrollees. Am J Prev Med. 2010 Feb;38(2):184-91.

6. Kupfer SS et al. Reducing colorectal cancer risk among African Americans. Gastroenterology. 2015 Nov;149(6):1302-4.

7. Espey DK et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer. 2007 Nov;110(10):2119-52.

8. Day LW et al. Screening prevalence and incidence of colorectal cancer among American Indian/Alaskan natives in the Indian Health Service. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Jul;56(7):2104-13.

9. Gupta S et al. Challenges and possible solutions to colorectal cancer screening for the underserved. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Apr;106(4):dju032.

10. Steele CB et al. Colorectal cancer incidence and screening – United States, 2008 and 2010. MMWR Suppl. 2013 Nov 22;62(3):53-60.

11. Boehmer U et al. Cancer survivorship and sexual orientation. Cancer 2011 Aug 15;117(16):3796-804.

12. Austin SB, Pazaris MJ, Wei EK, et al. Application of the Rosner-Wei risk-prediction model to estimate sexual orientation patterns in colon cancer risk in a prospective cohort of US women. Cancer Causes Control. 2014 Aug;25(8):999-1006.

13. Heslin KC et al. Sexual orientation and testing for prostate and colorectal cancers among men in California. Med Care. 2008 Dec;46(12):1240-8.

14. McElroy JA et al. Advancing Health Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients in Missouri. Mo Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;112(4):262-5.

15. Greiner KA et al. Knowledge and perceptions of colorectal cancer screening among urban African Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Nov;20(11):977-83.

16. Green PM, Kelly BA. Colorectal cancer knowledge, perceptions, and behaviors in African Americans. Cancer Nurs. 2004 May-Jun;27(3):206-15; quiz 216-7.

17. Berkowitz Z et al. Beliefs, risk perceptions, and gaps in knowledge as barriers to colorectal cancer screening in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Feb;56(2):307-14.

18. Dolan NC et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: Does literacy make a difference? J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jul;22(13):2617-22.

19. Peterson NB et al. The influence of health literacy on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs and behavior. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Oct;99(10):1105-12.

20. Haddock MG et al. Intraoperative irradiation for locally recurrent colorectal cancer in previously irradiated patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Apr 1;49(5):1267-74.

21. Jones RM et al. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med. 2010 May;38(5):508-16.

22. Basch CH et al. Screening colonoscopy bowel preparation: experience in an urban minority population. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;6(6):442-6.

23. Davis JL et al. Sociodemographic differences in fears and mistrust contributing to unwillingness to participate in cancer screenings. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 Nov;23(4 Suppl):67-76.

24. Robinson CM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among publicly insured urban women: no knowledge of tests and no clinician recommendation. J Natl Med Assoc. 2011 Aug;103(8):746-53.

25. Goldman RE et al. Perspectives of colorectal cancer risk and screening among Dominicans and Puerto Ricans: Stigma and misperceptions. Qual Health Res. 2009 Nov;19(11):1559-68.

26. Laiyemo AO et al. Race and colorectal cancer disparities: Health-care utilization vs different cancer susceptibilities. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 Apr 21;102(8):538-46.

27. White A et al. Racial disparities and treatment trends in a large cohort of elderly African Americans and Caucasians with colorectal cancer, 1991 to 2002. Cancer. 2008 Dec 15;113(12):3400-9.

28. Doubeni CA et al. Neighborhood socioeconomic status and use of colonoscopy in an insured population – A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36392.

29. Tammana VS, Laiyemo AO. Colorectal cancer disparities: Issues, controversies and solutions. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jan 28;20(4):869-76.

30. Carethers JM. Screening for colorectal cancer in African Americans: determinants and rationale for an earlier age to commence screening. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Mar;60(3):711-21.

31. Miranda-Diaz C et al. Barriers for Compliance to Breast, Colorectal, and Cervical Screening Cancer Tests among Hispanic Patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Dec 22;13(1):ijerph13010021.

32. Sewali B et al. Understanding cancer screening service utilization by Somali men in Minnesota. J Immigr Minor Health. 2015 Jun;17(3):773-80.

 

 

33. Walsh JM et al. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in Latino and Vietnamese Americans. Compared with non-Latino white Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Feb;19(2):156-66.

34. Perez-Stable EJ et al. Self-reported use of cancer screening tests among Latinos and Anglos in a prepaid health plan. Arch Intern Med. 1994 May 23;154(10):1073-81.

35. Shariff-Marco S et al. Racial/ethnic differences in self-reported racism and its association with cancer-related health behaviors. Am J Public Health. 2010 Feb;100(2):364-74.

36. Powe BD et al. Comparing knowledge of colorectal and prostate cancer among African American and Hispanic men. Cancer Nurs. 2009 Sep-Oct;32(5):412-7.

37. Jun J, Oh KM. Asian and Hispanic Americans’ cancer fatalism and colon cancer screening. Am J Health Behav. 2013 Mar;37(2):145-54.

38. Hacker K et al. The impact of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on immigrant health: Perceptions of immigrants in Everett, Massachusetts, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Aug;73(4):586-94.

39. Firger J. Rescinding DACA could spur a public health crisis, from lost services to higher rates of depression, substance abuse. Newsweek.

40. May FP et al. Racial minorities are more likely than whites to report lack of provider recommendation for colon cancer screening. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;110(10):1388-94.

41. Levy BT et al. Why hasn’t this patient been screened for colon cancer? An Iowa Research Network study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;20(5):458-68.

42. Rosenblatt RA. A view from the periphery – health care in rural America. N Engl J Med. 2004 Sep 9;351(11):1049-51.

43. Young WF et al. Predictors of colorectal screening in rural Colorado: testing to prevent colon cancer in the high plains research network. J Rural Health. 2007 Summer;23(3):238-45.

44. Kates J et al. Health and Access to Care and Coverage for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Individuals in the U.S. In: Foundation KF, ed. Disparities Policy Issue Brief. Volume 2017; Aug 30, 2017.

45. Katz ML et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening by using community volunteers: results of the Carolinas cancer education and screening (CARES) project. Cancer. 2007 Oct 1;110(7):1602-10.

46. Jean-Jacques M et al. Program to improve colorectal cancer screening in a low-income, racially diverse population: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;10(5):412-7.

47. Reuland DS et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Jul 1;177(7):967-74.

48. Percac-Lima S et al. A culturally tailored navigator program for colorectal cancer screening in a community health center: a randomized, controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7.

49. Nash D et al. Evaluation of an intervention to increase screening colonoscopy in an urban public hospital setting. J Urban Health. 2006 Mar;83(2):231-43.

50. Lebwohl B et al. Effect of a patient navigator program on the volume and quality of colonoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011 May-Jun;45(5):e47-53.

51. Khankari K et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening among the medically underserved: A pilot study within a federally qualified health center. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Oct;22(10):1410-4.

52. Wang JH et al. Recruiting Chinese Americans into cancer screening intervention trials: Strategies and outcomes. Clin Trials. 2014 Apr;11(2):167-77.

53. Katz ML et al. Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Jan;21(1):45-52.

54. Ford ME et al. Enhancing adherence among older African American men enrolled in a longitudinal cancer screening trial. Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):545-50.

55. Christie J et al. A randomized controlled trial using patient navigation to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income minorities. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008 Mar;100(3):278-84.

56. Philip EJ et al. Evaluating the impact of an educational intervention to increase CRC screening rates in the African American community: A preliminary study. Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Oct;21(10):1685-91.

57. Greiner KA et al. Implementation intentions and colorectal screening: A randomized trial in safety-net clinics. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Dec;47(6):703-14.

58. Horne HN et al. Effect of patient navigation on colorectal cancer screening in a community-based randomized controlled trial of urban African American adults. Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Feb;26(2):239-46.

59. Grubbs SS et al. Eliminating racial disparities in colorectal cancer in the real world: It took a village. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 1;31(16):1928-30.

60. Jung MY et al. The Chinese and Korean American immigrant experience: a mixed-methods examination of facilitators and barriers of colorectal cancer screening. Ethn Health. 2017 Feb 25:1-20.

61. Viruell-Fuentes EA et al. More than culture: structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Soc Sci Med. 2012 Dec;75(12):2099-106.

Dr. Oduyebo is a third-year fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Dr. Malespin is an assistant professor in the department of medicine and the medical director of hepatology at the University of Florida Health, Jacksonville; Dr. Mendoza Ladd is an assistant professor of medicine at Texas Tech University, El Paso; Dr. Day is an associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco; Dr. Charabaty is an associate professor of medicine and the director of the IBD Center in the division of gastroenterology at Medstar-Georgetown University Center, Washington; Dr. Chen is an associate professor of medicine, the director of patient safety and quality, and the director of the small-bowel endoscopy program in division of gastroenterology at Washington University, St. Louis; Dr. Carr is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; Dr. Quezada is an assistant dean for admissions, an assistant dean for academic and multicultural affairs, and an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; and Dr. Lamousé-Smith is a director of translational medicine, immunology, and early development at Janssen Pharmaceuticals Research and Development, Spring House, Penn.

AUSTIN, TEX. – While women may have a plethora of options for care during pregnancy, attention given to women after birth is seriously lacking, with detrimental effect.

Currently, postpartum care is limited to a follow-up appointment 6 weeks after pregnancy, but according to Alison Stuebe, MD, medical director of lactation services at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, there is too much going on in those 6 weeks to continue this model.

To address preferred changes to this system of care, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently released a revised committee opinion, which Dr. Stuebe helped create, to provide better care for mothers right after giving birth..

“What we’d like to do with the new committee opinion is move from this one-off visit at 6 weeks where we tell people ‘you’re good to go, you can have sex, get out of my office,’ to a much more comprehensive approach that reaches out to moms in the first couple of weeks,” explained Dr. Stuebe. “Whether that’s by phone, by asynchronous communication, by in-person visit, [the physician] finds out what’s going on, and then makes appropriate recommendations to help her rather than waiting to see what’s left after 6 weeks,” she said at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Paying for these services is a big barrier right now, said Dr. Stuebe, but some solutions have already shown signs of being cost effective.

One example, in Dr. Stuebe’s hometown of Durham County, N.C., is a program called Durham Connect, which puts nurses in contact with women at 3 weeks postpartum to make assessments of what care the mother needs, and then offers service referrals to help with those needs.

According to Dr. Stuebe, studies have found every dollar invested in the program would save $3 in emergency department visits for children.

As postpartum care evolves, the most important thing is to remember that when it comes to pregnancy and birth, just because the baby is out doesn’t mean the mother can be ignored, she said.

The revised committee opinion states: “The comprehensive postpartum visit should include a full assessment of physical, social, and psychological well-being, including the following domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.”

Dr. Stuebe receives support from Janssen.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – While women may have a plethora of options for care during pregnancy, attention given to women after birth is seriously lacking, with detrimental effect.

Currently, postpartum care is limited to a follow-up appointment 6 weeks after pregnancy, but according to Alison Stuebe, MD, medical director of lactation services at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, there is too much going on in those 6 weeks to continue this model.

To address preferred changes to this system of care, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently released a revised committee opinion, which Dr. Stuebe helped create, to provide better care for mothers right after giving birth..

“What we’d like to do with the new committee opinion is move from this one-off visit at 6 weeks where we tell people ‘you’re good to go, you can have sex, get out of my office,’ to a much more comprehensive approach that reaches out to moms in the first couple of weeks,” explained Dr. Stuebe. “Whether that’s by phone, by asynchronous communication, by in-person visit, [the physician] finds out what’s going on, and then makes appropriate recommendations to help her rather than waiting to see what’s left after 6 weeks,” she said at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Paying for these services is a big barrier right now, said Dr. Stuebe, but some solutions have already shown signs of being cost effective.

One example, in Dr. Stuebe’s hometown of Durham County, N.C., is a program called Durham Connect, which puts nurses in contact with women at 3 weeks postpartum to make assessments of what care the mother needs, and then offers service referrals to help with those needs.

According to Dr. Stuebe, studies have found every dollar invested in the program would save $3 in emergency department visits for children.

As postpartum care evolves, the most important thing is to remember that when it comes to pregnancy and birth, just because the baby is out doesn’t mean the mother can be ignored, she said.

The revised committee opinion states: “The comprehensive postpartum visit should include a full assessment of physical, social, and psychological well-being, including the following domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.”

Dr. Stuebe receives support from Janssen.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – While women may have a plethora of options for care during pregnancy, attention given to women after birth is seriously lacking, with detrimental effect.

Currently, postpartum care is limited to a follow-up appointment 6 weeks after pregnancy, but according to Alison Stuebe, MD, medical director of lactation services at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, there is too much going on in those 6 weeks to continue this model.

To address preferred changes to this system of care, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently released a revised committee opinion, which Dr. Stuebe helped create, to provide better care for mothers right after giving birth..

“What we’d like to do with the new committee opinion is move from this one-off visit at 6 weeks where we tell people ‘you’re good to go, you can have sex, get out of my office,’ to a much more comprehensive approach that reaches out to moms in the first couple of weeks,” explained Dr. Stuebe. “Whether that’s by phone, by asynchronous communication, by in-person visit, [the physician] finds out what’s going on, and then makes appropriate recommendations to help her rather than waiting to see what’s left after 6 weeks,” she said at ACOG’s annual clinical and scientific meeting.

Paying for these services is a big barrier right now, said Dr. Stuebe, but some solutions have already shown signs of being cost effective.

One example, in Dr. Stuebe’s hometown of Durham County, N.C., is a program called Durham Connect, which puts nurses in contact with women at 3 weeks postpartum to make assessments of what care the mother needs, and then offers service referrals to help with those needs.

According to Dr. Stuebe, studies have found every dollar invested in the program would save $3 in emergency department visits for children.

As postpartum care evolves, the most important thing is to remember that when it comes to pregnancy and birth, just because the baby is out doesn’t mean the mother can be ignored, she said.

The revised committee opinion states: “The comprehensive postpartum visit should include a full assessment of physical, social, and psychological well-being, including the following domains: mood and emotional well-being; infant care and feeding; sexuality, contraception, and birth spacing; sleep and fatigue; physical recovery from birth; chronic disease management; and health maintenance.”

Dr. Stuebe receives support from Janssen.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEXAS – When the check box for ordering formula for newborns was removed as a standard newborn order option in the electronic health record (EHR), rates of exclusive breastfeeding climbed significantly in Los Angeles County hospitals, according to a recent study.

“The saying, ‘out of sight, out of mind’ cannot be overstated when it comes to physician order entry,” wrote Ramy Eskander, MD, and his colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a video interview, Dr. Eskander said that he and his colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, were looking for an intervention that would use the EHR as a quality improvement tool.

What they decided to do was to see “how could we possibly ‘get in the way’ and have an intervention between the provider and the patient that didn’t necessarily involve much work on the provider’s end, that had a significant impact on the back end,” he said. What they ended up doing was remove the order to request formula for mothers from the physician order set in the EHR.

Study data were collected in three stages for the academic tertiary care hospital within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services system.

First, Dr. Eskander and his colleagues collected baseline data from January to July of 2016. Then, data were collected from July to the end of 2016, while a campaign was underway to bring staff and patients up to speed on the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of exclusive breastfeeding on discharge between these two time periods, when rates hovered between 30% and 40%.

The final data collection period began in January 2017. At that time, the option to order formula for a newborn was removed as an option for the EHR newborn order set.

“When we did that, providers weren’t looking at the possibility of having that easy check box right there to fill in … and we know that when people have to go through more steps, they invariably don’t do it,” Dr. Eskander said.

He and his colleagues saw an almost immediate leap in rates of exclusive breastfeeding once clinicians had to click through an additional set of screens to reach the formula order. Once the formula order was removed, breastfeeding rates rose from 40.57% to 53.90% (P less than .001). Rates have been sustained since the removal of the EHR option for formula.

There was no difference in how infants fared after the intervention, said Dr. Eskander. “The outcomes for those infants was identical. There were no increased NICU admissions, there were no increased poor outcomes.”

Length of stay remained the same as well. “The babies were being discharged in the same state of health, just more of them were getting breast milk only, and we know the benefits that tends to portend,” he added.

There was some initial grumbling when the formula order was pulled from the newborn order set, he conceded. “The providers were not very happy about having to look for the newborn order for formula.” However, it took just about a month for the new workflow to seem normal, he said.

Dr. Eskander envisions a future where the EHR is “smart” enough to prompt appropriate orders and interventions for serious conditions such as preeclampsia. The electronic record, he said, could recognize the maternal diagnosis “and immediately create a system and structure around that mother to be able to help protect her and her baby. ... then having those diagnoses be able to drive outcomes can be very significant.”

Dr. Eskander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eskander, R et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 31I.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – When the check box for ordering formula for newborns was removed as a standard newborn order option in the electronic health record (EHR), rates of exclusive breastfeeding climbed significantly in Los Angeles County hospitals, according to a recent study.

“The saying, ‘out of sight, out of mind’ cannot be overstated when it comes to physician order entry,” wrote Ramy Eskander, MD, and his colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a video interview, Dr. Eskander said that he and his colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, were looking for an intervention that would use the EHR as a quality improvement tool.

What they decided to do was to see “how could we possibly ‘get in the way’ and have an intervention between the provider and the patient that didn’t necessarily involve much work on the provider’s end, that had a significant impact on the back end,” he said. What they ended up doing was remove the order to request formula for mothers from the physician order set in the EHR.

Study data were collected in three stages for the academic tertiary care hospital within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services system.

First, Dr. Eskander and his colleagues collected baseline data from January to July of 2016. Then, data were collected from July to the end of 2016, while a campaign was underway to bring staff and patients up to speed on the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of exclusive breastfeeding on discharge between these two time periods, when rates hovered between 30% and 40%.

The final data collection period began in January 2017. At that time, the option to order formula for a newborn was removed as an option for the EHR newborn order set.

“When we did that, providers weren’t looking at the possibility of having that easy check box right there to fill in … and we know that when people have to go through more steps, they invariably don’t do it,” Dr. Eskander said.

He and his colleagues saw an almost immediate leap in rates of exclusive breastfeeding once clinicians had to click through an additional set of screens to reach the formula order. Once the formula order was removed, breastfeeding rates rose from 40.57% to 53.90% (P less than .001). Rates have been sustained since the removal of the EHR option for formula.

There was no difference in how infants fared after the intervention, said Dr. Eskander. “The outcomes for those infants was identical. There were no increased NICU admissions, there were no increased poor outcomes.”

Length of stay remained the same as well. “The babies were being discharged in the same state of health, just more of them were getting breast milk only, and we know the benefits that tends to portend,” he added.

There was some initial grumbling when the formula order was pulled from the newborn order set, he conceded. “The providers were not very happy about having to look for the newborn order for formula.” However, it took just about a month for the new workflow to seem normal, he said.

Dr. Eskander envisions a future where the EHR is “smart” enough to prompt appropriate orders and interventions for serious conditions such as preeclampsia. The electronic record, he said, could recognize the maternal diagnosis “and immediately create a system and structure around that mother to be able to help protect her and her baby. ... then having those diagnoses be able to drive outcomes can be very significant.”

Dr. Eskander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eskander, R et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 31I.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – When the check box for ordering formula for newborns was removed as a standard newborn order option in the electronic health record (EHR), rates of exclusive breastfeeding climbed significantly in Los Angeles County hospitals, according to a recent study.

“The saying, ‘out of sight, out of mind’ cannot be overstated when it comes to physician order entry,” wrote Ramy Eskander, MD, and his colleagues in the poster accompanying the presentation at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a video interview, Dr. Eskander said that he and his colleagues at the University of California, Los Angeles, were looking for an intervention that would use the EHR as a quality improvement tool.

What they decided to do was to see “how could we possibly ‘get in the way’ and have an intervention between the provider and the patient that didn’t necessarily involve much work on the provider’s end, that had a significant impact on the back end,” he said. What they ended up doing was remove the order to request formula for mothers from the physician order set in the EHR.

Study data were collected in three stages for the academic tertiary care hospital within the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services system.

First, Dr. Eskander and his colleagues collected baseline data from January to July of 2016. Then, data were collected from July to the end of 2016, while a campaign was underway to bring staff and patients up to speed on the benefits of exclusive breastfeeding. There were no statistically significant differences in the rates of exclusive breastfeeding on discharge between these two time periods, when rates hovered between 30% and 40%.

The final data collection period began in January 2017. At that time, the option to order formula for a newborn was removed as an option for the EHR newborn order set.

“When we did that, providers weren’t looking at the possibility of having that easy check box right there to fill in … and we know that when people have to go through more steps, they invariably don’t do it,” Dr. Eskander said.

He and his colleagues saw an almost immediate leap in rates of exclusive breastfeeding once clinicians had to click through an additional set of screens to reach the formula order. Once the formula order was removed, breastfeeding rates rose from 40.57% to 53.90% (P less than .001). Rates have been sustained since the removal of the EHR option for formula.

There was no difference in how infants fared after the intervention, said Dr. Eskander. “The outcomes for those infants was identical. There were no increased NICU admissions, there were no increased poor outcomes.”

Length of stay remained the same as well. “The babies were being discharged in the same state of health, just more of them were getting breast milk only, and we know the benefits that tends to portend,” he added.

There was some initial grumbling when the formula order was pulled from the newborn order set, he conceded. “The providers were not very happy about having to look for the newborn order for formula.” However, it took just about a month for the new workflow to seem normal, he said.

Dr. Eskander envisions a future where the EHR is “smart” enough to prompt appropriate orders and interventions for serious conditions such as preeclampsia. The electronic record, he said, could recognize the maternal diagnosis “and immediately create a system and structure around that mother to be able to help protect her and her baby. ... then having those diagnoses be able to drive outcomes can be very significant.”

Dr. Eskander reported no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eskander, R et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 31I.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A novel therapeutic agent shows promise for postpartum depression in a phase 3 trial presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Brexanolone, administered intravenously, differs from other antidepressants currently used to treat postpartum depression. It targets GABA_A receptors, according to presenter Christine Clemson, PhD, senior medical director at Sage Therapeutics, the company developing brexanolone.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study enrolled 138 women who were 6 months postpartum or less, and had been diagnosed with a major depressive episode during the third trimester or at 4 or fewer weeks postpartum, and had a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of 26 or greater.

They were randomized to either brexanolone 60 mcg/kg/hour or 90 mcg/kg/hour administered intravenously over 60 hours as inpatients, or placebo. All three groups were an average aged 27 years old, the majority were white, and they had a HAM-D score between 28.4 and 29.1 at baseline.

After the first 60 hours of treatment, patients in the brexanolone group had mean reductions in the HAM-D score of about 20 in the 60 mcg group (P less than .01) and 18 in the 90 mcg group (P less than .05), compared with almost 14 in the placebo group. This was the primary endpoint,

Patients retained improvement through day 30, while those in the placebo group experienced a slight swing in the opposite direction.

Adverse effects in the brexanolone-treated groups were minimal; the majority of events reported were headaches or dizziness. However, Dr. Clemson said that some patients had to stop breastfeeding for a week.

An application for brexanolone for treating postpartum depression was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on April 23; if approved, it would be the first drug of its kind to become available to treat postpartum depression.

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics; two of the six authors are company employees. Two authors, including the lead author, are from the department of psychiatry, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[email protected]

SOURCE: S. Meltzer-Brody S et al. ACOG 2018, Poster 29B.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A novel therapeutic agent shows promise for postpartum depression in a phase 3 trial presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Brexanolone, administered intravenously, differs from other antidepressants currently used to treat postpartum depression. It targets GABA_A receptors, according to presenter Christine Clemson, PhD, senior medical director at Sage Therapeutics, the company developing brexanolone.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study enrolled 138 women who were 6 months postpartum or less, and had been diagnosed with a major depressive episode during the third trimester or at 4 or fewer weeks postpartum, and had a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of 26 or greater.

They were randomized to either brexanolone 60 mcg/kg/hour or 90 mcg/kg/hour administered intravenously over 60 hours as inpatients, or placebo. All three groups were an average aged 27 years old, the majority were white, and they had a HAM-D score between 28.4 and 29.1 at baseline.

After the first 60 hours of treatment, patients in the brexanolone group had mean reductions in the HAM-D score of about 20 in the 60 mcg group (P less than .01) and 18 in the 90 mcg group (P less than .05), compared with almost 14 in the placebo group. This was the primary endpoint,

Patients retained improvement through day 30, while those in the placebo group experienced a slight swing in the opposite direction.

Adverse effects in the brexanolone-treated groups were minimal; the majority of events reported were headaches or dizziness. However, Dr. Clemson said that some patients had to stop breastfeeding for a week.

An application for brexanolone for treating postpartum depression was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on April 23; if approved, it would be the first drug of its kind to become available to treat postpartum depression.

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics; two of the six authors are company employees. Two authors, including the lead author, are from the department of psychiatry, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[email protected]

SOURCE: S. Meltzer-Brody S et al. ACOG 2018, Poster 29B.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A novel therapeutic agent shows promise for postpartum depression in a phase 3 trial presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Brexanolone, administered intravenously, differs from other antidepressants currently used to treat postpartum depression. It targets GABA_A receptors, according to presenter Christine Clemson, PhD, senior medical director at Sage Therapeutics, the company developing brexanolone.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study enrolled 138 women who were 6 months postpartum or less, and had been diagnosed with a major depressive episode during the third trimester or at 4 or fewer weeks postpartum, and had a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of 26 or greater.

They were randomized to either brexanolone 60 mcg/kg/hour or 90 mcg/kg/hour administered intravenously over 60 hours as inpatients, or placebo. All three groups were an average aged 27 years old, the majority were white, and they had a HAM-D score between 28.4 and 29.1 at baseline.

After the first 60 hours of treatment, patients in the brexanolone group had mean reductions in the HAM-D score of about 20 in the 60 mcg group (P less than .01) and 18 in the 90 mcg group (P less than .05), compared with almost 14 in the placebo group. This was the primary endpoint,

Patients retained improvement through day 30, while those in the placebo group experienced a slight swing in the opposite direction.

Adverse effects in the brexanolone-treated groups were minimal; the majority of events reported were headaches or dizziness. However, Dr. Clemson said that some patients had to stop breastfeeding for a week.

An application for brexanolone for treating postpartum depression was submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on April 23; if approved, it would be the first drug of its kind to become available to treat postpartum depression.

The study was funded by Sage Therapeutics; two of the six authors are company employees. Two authors, including the lead author, are from the department of psychiatry, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

[email protected]

SOURCE: S. Meltzer-Brody S et al. ACOG 2018, Poster 29B.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A simple process change helped increase the number of genetic screenings for hereditary cancer risk performed in community ob.gyn. practices, according to Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, and his associates.

Few community-based ob.gyns. routinely screen their patients for hereditary cancer risks, Dr. DeFrancesco said at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, despite ACOG’s position that they are fully trained and qualified to do so. He and his colleagues studied an intervention aimed at streamlining and standardizing genetic assessment in their practice.

A team of physicians, staff, genetic counselors, and process engineers analyzed how hereditary cancer risk assessment was being done at five clinical sites of two community ob.gyn. practices – Dr. DeFrancesco’s practice in Waterbury, Conn., and that of Richard Waldman, MD, in Syracuse, N.Y. – then refined workflows and added tools to create a turnkey process for assessment and screening, Dr. DeFrancesco said.

Under the new process, patients completed a family cancer history in the exam room prior to seeing their physician. Genetic testing was offered to patients who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for hereditary/familial high-risk assessment for breast and ovarian cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jan;15[1]:9-20). Those who chose to be tested were able to provide a saliva sample in the office. Counseling was provided to appropriate patients.

The number of patients tested for hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer increased dramatically with the new process. During the 8-week period after the intervention, 4% (165) were tested out of 4,107 total patients seen; during the 8 weeks preceding, 1% (43) of 3,882 patients were tested.

Overall, 92.8% (3,811) of patients seen after the intervention provided a family cancer history. Almost a quarter – 23.5% (906) – met NCCN criteria for genetic testing.

A total of 318 patients agreed to undergo genetic testing and 165 (51.9%) completed the process. Nine patients (5.5%) were found to carry a pathogenic gene variant associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome, Dr. DeFrancesco and colleagues reported.

Patients and providers also were surveyed regarding their experience with the new process. Patients overwhelming noted that they understood the information provided (98.8%), and that they were satisfied with the overall process (97.6%). All 15 providers said that they would continue to use the new process in their practice and most – 13 of 15 – said they found the process thorough and felt comfortable recommending genetic counseling without referral to a genetic counselor (2 were undecided).

“I think that this study really proves the concept that in a community-based practice, we can test our patients,” Dr. DeFrancesco said in an interview.

Myriad Genetics sponsored the study. Dr. DeFrancesco reported no financial conflicts of interest. His coauthors include employees of Myriad Genetics, some with ownership interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: DeFrancesco, MS et al. ACOG 2018 3K.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A simple process change helped increase the number of genetic screenings for hereditary cancer risk performed in community ob.gyn. practices, according to Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, and his associates.

Few community-based ob.gyns. routinely screen their patients for hereditary cancer risks, Dr. DeFrancesco said at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, despite ACOG’s position that they are fully trained and qualified to do so. He and his colleagues studied an intervention aimed at streamlining and standardizing genetic assessment in their practice.

A team of physicians, staff, genetic counselors, and process engineers analyzed how hereditary cancer risk assessment was being done at five clinical sites of two community ob.gyn. practices – Dr. DeFrancesco’s practice in Waterbury, Conn., and that of Richard Waldman, MD, in Syracuse, N.Y. – then refined workflows and added tools to create a turnkey process for assessment and screening, Dr. DeFrancesco said.

Under the new process, patients completed a family cancer history in the exam room prior to seeing their physician. Genetic testing was offered to patients who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for hereditary/familial high-risk assessment for breast and ovarian cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jan;15[1]:9-20). Those who chose to be tested were able to provide a saliva sample in the office. Counseling was provided to appropriate patients.

The number of patients tested for hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer increased dramatically with the new process. During the 8-week period after the intervention, 4% (165) were tested out of 4,107 total patients seen; during the 8 weeks preceding, 1% (43) of 3,882 patients were tested.

Overall, 92.8% (3,811) of patients seen after the intervention provided a family cancer history. Almost a quarter – 23.5% (906) – met NCCN criteria for genetic testing.

A total of 318 patients agreed to undergo genetic testing and 165 (51.9%) completed the process. Nine patients (5.5%) were found to carry a pathogenic gene variant associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome, Dr. DeFrancesco and colleagues reported.

Patients and providers also were surveyed regarding their experience with the new process. Patients overwhelming noted that they understood the information provided (98.8%), and that they were satisfied with the overall process (97.6%). All 15 providers said that they would continue to use the new process in their practice and most – 13 of 15 – said they found the process thorough and felt comfortable recommending genetic counseling without referral to a genetic counselor (2 were undecided).

“I think that this study really proves the concept that in a community-based practice, we can test our patients,” Dr. DeFrancesco said in an interview.

Myriad Genetics sponsored the study. Dr. DeFrancesco reported no financial conflicts of interest. His coauthors include employees of Myriad Genetics, some with ownership interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: DeFrancesco, MS et al. ACOG 2018 3K.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – A simple process change helped increase the number of genetic screenings for hereditary cancer risk performed in community ob.gyn. practices, according to Mark S. DeFrancesco, MD, and his associates.

Few community-based ob.gyns. routinely screen their patients for hereditary cancer risks, Dr. DeFrancesco said at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, despite ACOG’s position that they are fully trained and qualified to do so. He and his colleagues studied an intervention aimed at streamlining and standardizing genetic assessment in their practice.

A team of physicians, staff, genetic counselors, and process engineers analyzed how hereditary cancer risk assessment was being done at five clinical sites of two community ob.gyn. practices – Dr. DeFrancesco’s practice in Waterbury, Conn., and that of Richard Waldman, MD, in Syracuse, N.Y. – then refined workflows and added tools to create a turnkey process for assessment and screening, Dr. DeFrancesco said.

Under the new process, patients completed a family cancer history in the exam room prior to seeing their physician. Genetic testing was offered to patients who met National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for hereditary/familial high-risk assessment for breast and ovarian cancer (J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2017 Jan;15[1]:9-20). Those who chose to be tested were able to provide a saliva sample in the office. Counseling was provided to appropriate patients.

The number of patients tested for hereditary risk of breast and ovarian cancer increased dramatically with the new process. During the 8-week period after the intervention, 4% (165) were tested out of 4,107 total patients seen; during the 8 weeks preceding, 1% (43) of 3,882 patients were tested.

Overall, 92.8% (3,811) of patients seen after the intervention provided a family cancer history. Almost a quarter – 23.5% (906) – met NCCN criteria for genetic testing.

A total of 318 patients agreed to undergo genetic testing and 165 (51.9%) completed the process. Nine patients (5.5%) were found to carry a pathogenic gene variant associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer or Lynch syndrome, Dr. DeFrancesco and colleagues reported.

Patients and providers also were surveyed regarding their experience with the new process. Patients overwhelming noted that they understood the information provided (98.8%), and that they were satisfied with the overall process (97.6%). All 15 providers said that they would continue to use the new process in their practice and most – 13 of 15 – said they found the process thorough and felt comfortable recommending genetic counseling without referral to a genetic counselor (2 were undecided).

“I think that this study really proves the concept that in a community-based practice, we can test our patients,” Dr. DeFrancesco said in an interview.

Myriad Genetics sponsored the study. Dr. DeFrancesco reported no financial conflicts of interest. His coauthors include employees of Myriad Genetics, some with ownership interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: DeFrancesco, MS et al. ACOG 2018 3K.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – The experiences of one safety net hospital showed the feasibility of delivering prenatal care to low-risk, uninsured women in a prepaid, bundled package.

Women with low-risk pregnancies saw quality of care better than that provided with Medicaid coverage when receiving bundled care. The adjusted odds ratio for predefined adequacy of care was 3.75 for the low-risk bundled care recipients compared with those on Medicaid (P = .015), according to the experience at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, presented at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For hospitals with large numbers of undocumented patients and others who are uninsured but ineligible for Medicaid, considerable cost savings could be realized, said Erin Duncan, MD, who completed the work while in training at Emory University.

“Using data from previous studies, Grady Memorial Hospital could see a savings of over $1 million per year by providing care to its undocumented population,” she and her collaborators wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Dr. Duncan said that since implementation in 2010, about 40% of deliveries at the facility have occurred under the “Grady Healthy Baby” (GHB) bundle.

The one-payment package of bundled prenatal care was developed assuming that most participants would have low-risk pregnancies, said Dr. Duncan, who is currently an ob.gyn. in private practice in the Atlanta area.

To look further into maternal and pregnancy characteristics of GHB participants and compare them with those on Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators performed a retrospective cohort study. Examining viable singleton pregnancies delivered at Grady between 2011 and 2014, the investigators compared 100 randomly selected GHB participants with 100 randomly selected Medicaid participants.

Comparing patients receiving care under GHB and Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her colleagues found that “GHB participants were older, more likely to be Hispanic, and less likely to be black compared to Medicaid recipients (P less than .001 for all,)” they wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Hispanic patients made up 59% of the GHB group, compared with 8% of the Medicaid group, said Dr. Duncan, adding in an interview that over half of Hispanics in the state of Georgia during the study period were undocumented.

Parity was similar between the two groups, as were gestational age at delivery and mode of delivery.

In their analysis, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators looked at both complexity and adequacy of care for the 200 patients studied. They found that there was no significant difference in the number of patients in each care group who remained low risk throughout their pregnancies, transitioned from low risk to high risk, or entered prenatal care with a high risk pregnancy, a circumstance that occurred in about 1 in 10 pregnancies.

For the approximately 50% of patients who remained low risk through their pregnancies, care under the GHB model was significantly more likely to be assessed as adequate throughout pregnancy than for those patients on Medicaid (61.7% vs 35.5%, P = .001).

Patients who became high risk during prenatal care were no more likely to receive adequate care under one model than the other.

For high risk patients, delivery of adequate care happened only under the Medicaid care model. Numbers in this group were small; 7 of 100 GHB and 15 of 100 Medicaid patients entered prenatal care with high risk pregnancies. However, no high risk GHB patients received adequate care, while that standard was met for 80% of the Medicaid patients (P less than .001).

Adequacy of care was assessed using the Kotelchuck index for low-risk pregnancies; this model assumes care is “adequate” when 80% of the number of expected visits were attended by the woman receiving prenatal care. Additionally, care was deemed adequate for high-risk pregnancies if at least 80% of the number of expected ultrasound appointments were attended.

“In the current political climate, this study has implications for all pregnancies that begin as uninsured, regardless of maternal documentation status,” wrote Dr. Duncan and her colleagues.

Dr. Duncan reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Duncan, E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 28C.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – The experiences of one safety net hospital showed the feasibility of delivering prenatal care to low-risk, uninsured women in a prepaid, bundled package.

Women with low-risk pregnancies saw quality of care better than that provided with Medicaid coverage when receiving bundled care. The adjusted odds ratio for predefined adequacy of care was 3.75 for the low-risk bundled care recipients compared with those on Medicaid (P = .015), according to the experience at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, presented at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For hospitals with large numbers of undocumented patients and others who are uninsured but ineligible for Medicaid, considerable cost savings could be realized, said Erin Duncan, MD, who completed the work while in training at Emory University.

“Using data from previous studies, Grady Memorial Hospital could see a savings of over $1 million per year by providing care to its undocumented population,” she and her collaborators wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Dr. Duncan said that since implementation in 2010, about 40% of deliveries at the facility have occurred under the “Grady Healthy Baby” (GHB) bundle.

The one-payment package of bundled prenatal care was developed assuming that most participants would have low-risk pregnancies, said Dr. Duncan, who is currently an ob.gyn. in private practice in the Atlanta area.

To look further into maternal and pregnancy characteristics of GHB participants and compare them with those on Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators performed a retrospective cohort study. Examining viable singleton pregnancies delivered at Grady between 2011 and 2014, the investigators compared 100 randomly selected GHB participants with 100 randomly selected Medicaid participants.

Comparing patients receiving care under GHB and Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her colleagues found that “GHB participants were older, more likely to be Hispanic, and less likely to be black compared to Medicaid recipients (P less than .001 for all,)” they wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Hispanic patients made up 59% of the GHB group, compared with 8% of the Medicaid group, said Dr. Duncan, adding in an interview that over half of Hispanics in the state of Georgia during the study period were undocumented.

Parity was similar between the two groups, as were gestational age at delivery and mode of delivery.

In their analysis, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators looked at both complexity and adequacy of care for the 200 patients studied. They found that there was no significant difference in the number of patients in each care group who remained low risk throughout their pregnancies, transitioned from low risk to high risk, or entered prenatal care with a high risk pregnancy, a circumstance that occurred in about 1 in 10 pregnancies.

For the approximately 50% of patients who remained low risk through their pregnancies, care under the GHB model was significantly more likely to be assessed as adequate throughout pregnancy than for those patients on Medicaid (61.7% vs 35.5%, P = .001).

Patients who became high risk during prenatal care were no more likely to receive adequate care under one model than the other.

For high risk patients, delivery of adequate care happened only under the Medicaid care model. Numbers in this group were small; 7 of 100 GHB and 15 of 100 Medicaid patients entered prenatal care with high risk pregnancies. However, no high risk GHB patients received adequate care, while that standard was met for 80% of the Medicaid patients (P less than .001).

Adequacy of care was assessed using the Kotelchuck index for low-risk pregnancies; this model assumes care is “adequate” when 80% of the number of expected visits were attended by the woman receiving prenatal care. Additionally, care was deemed adequate for high-risk pregnancies if at least 80% of the number of expected ultrasound appointments were attended.

“In the current political climate, this study has implications for all pregnancies that begin as uninsured, regardless of maternal documentation status,” wrote Dr. Duncan and her colleagues.

Dr. Duncan reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Duncan, E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 28C.

AUSTIN, TEXAS – The experiences of one safety net hospital showed the feasibility of delivering prenatal care to low-risk, uninsured women in a prepaid, bundled package.

Women with low-risk pregnancies saw quality of care better than that provided with Medicaid coverage when receiving bundled care. The adjusted odds ratio for predefined adequacy of care was 3.75 for the low-risk bundled care recipients compared with those on Medicaid (P = .015), according to the experience at Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, presented at the annual clinical and scientific sessions of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

For hospitals with large numbers of undocumented patients and others who are uninsured but ineligible for Medicaid, considerable cost savings could be realized, said Erin Duncan, MD, who completed the work while in training at Emory University.

“Using data from previous studies, Grady Memorial Hospital could see a savings of over $1 million per year by providing care to its undocumented population,” she and her collaborators wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Dr. Duncan said that since implementation in 2010, about 40% of deliveries at the facility have occurred under the “Grady Healthy Baby” (GHB) bundle.

The one-payment package of bundled prenatal care was developed assuming that most participants would have low-risk pregnancies, said Dr. Duncan, who is currently an ob.gyn. in private practice in the Atlanta area.

To look further into maternal and pregnancy characteristics of GHB participants and compare them with those on Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators performed a retrospective cohort study. Examining viable singleton pregnancies delivered at Grady between 2011 and 2014, the investigators compared 100 randomly selected GHB participants with 100 randomly selected Medicaid participants.

Comparing patients receiving care under GHB and Medicaid, Dr. Duncan and her colleagues found that “GHB participants were older, more likely to be Hispanic, and less likely to be black compared to Medicaid recipients (P less than .001 for all,)” they wrote in the poster accompanying the presentation.

Hispanic patients made up 59% of the GHB group, compared with 8% of the Medicaid group, said Dr. Duncan, adding in an interview that over half of Hispanics in the state of Georgia during the study period were undocumented.

Parity was similar between the two groups, as were gestational age at delivery and mode of delivery.

In their analysis, Dr. Duncan and her collaborators looked at both complexity and adequacy of care for the 200 patients studied. They found that there was no significant difference in the number of patients in each care group who remained low risk throughout their pregnancies, transitioned from low risk to high risk, or entered prenatal care with a high risk pregnancy, a circumstance that occurred in about 1 in 10 pregnancies.

For the approximately 50% of patients who remained low risk through their pregnancies, care under the GHB model was significantly more likely to be assessed as adequate throughout pregnancy than for those patients on Medicaid (61.7% vs 35.5%, P = .001).

Patients who became high risk during prenatal care were no more likely to receive adequate care under one model than the other.

For high risk patients, delivery of adequate care happened only under the Medicaid care model. Numbers in this group were small; 7 of 100 GHB and 15 of 100 Medicaid patients entered prenatal care with high risk pregnancies. However, no high risk GHB patients received adequate care, while that standard was met for 80% of the Medicaid patients (P less than .001).

Adequacy of care was assessed using the Kotelchuck index for low-risk pregnancies; this model assumes care is “adequate” when 80% of the number of expected visits were attended by the woman receiving prenatal care. Additionally, care was deemed adequate for high-risk pregnancies if at least 80% of the number of expected ultrasound appointments were attended.

“In the current political climate, this study has implications for all pregnancies that begin as uninsured, regardless of maternal documentation status,” wrote Dr. Duncan and her colleagues.

Dr. Duncan reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Duncan, E et al. ACOG 2018, Abstract 28C.

WASHINGTON – A bill working its way through the U.S. Congress that would mandate study of the feasibility of a three-digit phone number for suicide prevention and mental health crisis has the potential to establish not only a much-needed national hotline, but more broadly “reboot U.S. crisis care,” Michael F. Hogan, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Association of Suicidology.

“If we get this legislation passed and some funding, it is a remarkable opportunity to get it right,” said Dr. Hogan, a mental health policy consultant based in Delmar, N.Y., and former commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health. A single, “N11,” three-digit phone number for suicide prevention, substance abuse, and mental health crises would “provide a skeleton for a whole new system of crisis centers.”

The pending legislation, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2017, “would create parity between brain health and heart health,” Dr. Hogan noted in a video interview. The bill passed the Senate in November 2017, and in late March 2018 had a positive hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives. “The prospects are pretty good,” he said.

Currently, U.S. services are “a mess,” bemoaned Dr. Hogan, who attributed the problem to abandonment of a national program starting in 1981 because of funding changes introduced by the Reagan administration. The centerpiece of the current U.S. system, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, receives limited and indirect federal support and relies on coordination among more than 160 local crisis line operations across the country that get no federal funding. Many calls into the Lifeline are, by necessity, answered outside of the locality or even the state from where the call was placed. Inadequacies in the resources available to help people who are suicidal or having other mental health crises have placed the response burden on police departments and emergency departments, “the worst place to go” for mental health care, Dr. Hogan said.

“The primary way around the country to address the problem is cops and EDs; that’s expensive and bad. When you don’t have good crisis services, people go to emergency departments where it’s ‘go upstairs or go home,’ ” he lamented. “We need EMS for the brain; we need one number to call.”

Establishment of a centralized and funded U.S. crisis call system would tie into other measures aimed at transforming national crisis services called for by the Crisis Now program of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Dr. Hogan said.

Dr. Hogan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – A bill working its way through the U.S. Congress that would mandate study of the feasibility of a three-digit phone number for suicide prevention and mental health crisis has the potential to establish not only a much-needed national hotline, but more broadly “reboot U.S. crisis care,” Michael F. Hogan, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Association of Suicidology.

“If we get this legislation passed and some funding, it is a remarkable opportunity to get it right,” said Dr. Hogan, a mental health policy consultant based in Delmar, N.Y., and former commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health. A single, “N11,” three-digit phone number for suicide prevention, substance abuse, and mental health crises would “provide a skeleton for a whole new system of crisis centers.”

The pending legislation, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2017, “would create parity between brain health and heart health,” Dr. Hogan noted in a video interview. The bill passed the Senate in November 2017, and in late March 2018 had a positive hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives. “The prospects are pretty good,” he said.

Currently, U.S. services are “a mess,” bemoaned Dr. Hogan, who attributed the problem to abandonment of a national program starting in 1981 because of funding changes introduced by the Reagan administration. The centerpiece of the current U.S. system, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, receives limited and indirect federal support and relies on coordination among more than 160 local crisis line operations across the country that get no federal funding. Many calls into the Lifeline are, by necessity, answered outside of the locality or even the state from where the call was placed. Inadequacies in the resources available to help people who are suicidal or having other mental health crises have placed the response burden on police departments and emergency departments, “the worst place to go” for mental health care, Dr. Hogan said.

“The primary way around the country to address the problem is cops and EDs; that’s expensive and bad. When you don’t have good crisis services, people go to emergency departments where it’s ‘go upstairs or go home,’ ” he lamented. “We need EMS for the brain; we need one number to call.”

Establishment of a centralized and funded U.S. crisis call system would tie into other measures aimed at transforming national crisis services called for by the Crisis Now program of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Dr. Hogan said.

Dr. Hogan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON – A bill working its way through the U.S. Congress that would mandate study of the feasibility of a three-digit phone number for suicide prevention and mental health crisis has the potential to establish not only a much-needed national hotline, but more broadly “reboot U.S. crisis care,” Michael F. Hogan, PhD, said at the annual conference of the American Association of Suicidology.

“If we get this legislation passed and some funding, it is a remarkable opportunity to get it right,” said Dr. Hogan, a mental health policy consultant based in Delmar, N.Y., and former commissioner of the New York State Office of Mental Health. A single, “N11,” three-digit phone number for suicide prevention, substance abuse, and mental health crises would “provide a skeleton for a whole new system of crisis centers.”

The pending legislation, the National Suicide Hotline Improvement Act of 2017, “would create parity between brain health and heart health,” Dr. Hogan noted in a video interview. The bill passed the Senate in November 2017, and in late March 2018 had a positive hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives. “The prospects are pretty good,” he said.

Currently, U.S. services are “a mess,” bemoaned Dr. Hogan, who attributed the problem to abandonment of a national program starting in 1981 because of funding changes introduced by the Reagan administration. The centerpiece of the current U.S. system, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, receives limited and indirect federal support and relies on coordination among more than 160 local crisis line operations across the country that get no federal funding. Many calls into the Lifeline are, by necessity, answered outside of the locality or even the state from where the call was placed. Inadequacies in the resources available to help people who are suicidal or having other mental health crises have placed the response burden on police departments and emergency departments, “the worst place to go” for mental health care, Dr. Hogan said.

“The primary way around the country to address the problem is cops and EDs; that’s expensive and bad. When you don’t have good crisis services, people go to emergency departments where it’s ‘go upstairs or go home,’ ” he lamented. “We need EMS for the brain; we need one number to call.”

Establishment of a centralized and funded U.S. crisis call system would tie into other measures aimed at transforming national crisis services called for by the Crisis Now program of the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Dr. Hogan said.

Dr. Hogan had no disclosures.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Most people rely on physicians, family, and friends to obtain relevant information about cosmetic procedures, but a knowledge gap exists regarding which cosmetic providers are medical doctors.

Those are two key findings from a national survey that set out to assess how consumers research, educate themselves, and choose cosmetic procedures and providers. At the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, study author Adam J. Wulkan, MD, discussed results from the 20-item survey, which was based on responses from 323 people who have obtained or have considered obtaining a cosmetic procedure such as laser hair removal.

Dr. Wulkan is a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He reported having no financial disclosures. Study coauthor Mathew Avram, MD, serves on the medical advisory board of Sciton and on the scientific advisory boards of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Cytrellis, and Allergan. He also is consultant for Merz Aesthetics, Allergan, Soliton, Invasix, and Revance, and has intellectual property with Cytrellis. He also holds stock options with Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Most people rely on physicians, family, and friends to obtain relevant information about cosmetic procedures, but a knowledge gap exists regarding which cosmetic providers are medical doctors.

Those are two key findings from a national survey that set out to assess how consumers research, educate themselves, and choose cosmetic procedures and providers. At the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, study author Adam J. Wulkan, MD, discussed results from the 20-item survey, which was based on responses from 323 people who have obtained or have considered obtaining a cosmetic procedure such as laser hair removal.

Dr. Wulkan is a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He reported having no financial disclosures. Study coauthor Mathew Avram, MD, serves on the medical advisory board of Sciton and on the scientific advisory boards of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Cytrellis, and Allergan. He also is consultant for Merz Aesthetics, Allergan, Soliton, Invasix, and Revance, and has intellectual property with Cytrellis. He also holds stock options with Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea.

[email protected]

DALLAS – Most people rely on physicians, family, and friends to obtain relevant information about cosmetic procedures, but a knowledge gap exists regarding which cosmetic providers are medical doctors.

Those are two key findings from a national survey that set out to assess how consumers research, educate themselves, and choose cosmetic procedures and providers. At the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, study author Adam J. Wulkan, MD, discussed results from the 20-item survey, which was based on responses from 323 people who have obtained or have considered obtaining a cosmetic procedure such as laser hair removal.

Dr. Wulkan is a dermatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. He reported having no financial disclosures. Study coauthor Mathew Avram, MD, serves on the medical advisory board of Sciton and on the scientific advisory boards of Sienna Biopharmaceuticals, Cytrellis, and Allergan. He also is consultant for Merz Aesthetics, Allergan, Soliton, Invasix, and Revance, and has intellectual property with Cytrellis. He also holds stock options with Cytrellis, Invasix, and Zalea.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – A reorganization of stroke systems of care is needed to meet the rising demand for screening, triaging, and treating acute ischemic stroke patients who may benefit from mechanical thrombectomy, according to Lawrence Wechsler, MD.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Wechsler described steps being taken at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s comprehensive stroke center to handle the additional workload.

UPMC conducts telemedicine acute stroke evaluations of patients at community hospitals’ primary stroke centers in the greater Pittsburgh area to make sure that only the cases that require mechanical thrombectomy are transferred to them for specialized care, while also continuing to see nontransferred patients via telemedicine for follow-up, said Dr. Wechsler, chair of the department of neurology at UPMC and founder of its Stroke Institute and telestroke network.

This sort of solution may be more feasible and practical for comprehensive stroke centers to implement in order to manage the number of cases, instead of expanding neurology residencies, capping stroke services, adding a nonteaching service, adding advanced practice providers, or increasing the case loads of vascular neurology fellows and attending neurologists, he said.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – A reorganization of stroke systems of care is needed to meet the rising demand for screening, triaging, and treating acute ischemic stroke patients who may benefit from mechanical thrombectomy, according to Lawrence Wechsler, MD.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Wechsler described steps being taken at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s comprehensive stroke center to handle the additional workload.

UPMC conducts telemedicine acute stroke evaluations of patients at community hospitals’ primary stroke centers in the greater Pittsburgh area to make sure that only the cases that require mechanical thrombectomy are transferred to them for specialized care, while also continuing to see nontransferred patients via telemedicine for follow-up, said Dr. Wechsler, chair of the department of neurology at UPMC and founder of its Stroke Institute and telestroke network.

This sort of solution may be more feasible and practical for comprehensive stroke centers to implement in order to manage the number of cases, instead of expanding neurology residencies, capping stroke services, adding a nonteaching service, adding advanced practice providers, or increasing the case loads of vascular neurology fellows and attending neurologists, he said.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – A reorganization of stroke systems of care is needed to meet the rising demand for screening, triaging, and treating acute ischemic stroke patients who may benefit from mechanical thrombectomy, according to Lawrence Wechsler, MD.

In a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, Dr. Wechsler described steps being taken at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s comprehensive stroke center to handle the additional workload.

UPMC conducts telemedicine acute stroke evaluations of patients at community hospitals’ primary stroke centers in the greater Pittsburgh area to make sure that only the cases that require mechanical thrombectomy are transferred to them for specialized care, while also continuing to see nontransferred patients via telemedicine for follow-up, said Dr. Wechsler, chair of the department of neurology at UPMC and founder of its Stroke Institute and telestroke network.

This sort of solution may be more feasible and practical for comprehensive stroke centers to implement in order to manage the number of cases, instead of expanding neurology residencies, capping stroke services, adding a nonteaching service, adding advanced practice providers, or increasing the case loads of vascular neurology fellows and attending neurologists, he said.

[email protected]