Search

Objective: This report describes findings from a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in primary care practices in Appalachian Kentucky., Methods: Sixty-six primary care practices were randomized to early or delayed intervention groups. The intervention was provided at practices using academic detailing, a method of education where providers receive information on a specific topic through personal contact. Data were collected in cross-sectional surveys of medical records at baseline and six months post-intervention., Results: A total of 3844 medical records were reviewed at baseline and 3751 at the six-month follow-up. At baselines, colonoscopy was recommended more frequently (43.4%) than any other screening modality, followed by fecal occult blood testing (18.0%), flexible sigmoidoscopy (0.4%), and double-contrast barium enema (0.3%). Rates of documented screening results were higher for all practices at the six-month follow-up for colonoscopy (31.8% vs 29.6%) and fecal occult blood testing (12.2% vs 11.2%). For early intervention practices that recommended screening, colonoscopy rates increased by 15.7% at six months compared to an increase of 2.4% in the delayed intervention practices (p=.01)., Conclusions: Using academic detailing to reach rural primary care providers with a CRC screening intervention was associated with an increase in colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article describes a community-based Patient Navigation (PN) project conducted to identify potential barriers to seeking follow-up cervical cancer care in southeastern Kentucky. Patient navigators (PNs) were placed in cervical cancer programs within county public health departments where they interviewed patients about their perceived barriers to seeking follow-up care after receiving a positive Pap test result. Participants identified various potential barriers at three levels: the individual/personal level, the health care system level and the community/environmental level. One identified barrier that was unique to this study was a lack of consistency between follow-up recommendations and follow-up guidelines for patients under age 21. Implications are discussed.