Search

The Canadian Screening for Colorectal Cancer Research Network (CanSCCRN) recently set out to develop a national CRC screening research agenda and identify priority research areas. The specific objectives were to (1) identify evidence gaps relevant to CRC screening and the barriers and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake by CRC screening programs, (2) establish high-priority collaborative research ideas to inform best CRC screening practices, and (3) identify one to two research topics for grant development and submission within 12 to 18 months. Three focus groups were conducted with network members and relevant parties (n = 15) to identify evidence gaps, barriers, and facilitators to evidence generation and uptake. Three workshops were subsequently held to discuss focus group findings and develop an action plan for research. An electronic survey was used to prioritize the evidence gaps to be addressed. Overall, five categories of barriers and six categories of facilitators to evidence uptake and generation were identified, as well as 23 evidence gaps to be addressed. Screening participation, post-polypectomy surveillance, and screening age range were identified as research priority research areas. Adequate resourcing and infrastructure, as well as partnerships with knowledge end users, are integral to addressing these research areas and advancing CRC screening programs in Canada and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples. Discussion: Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Conclusions: The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of social media presents a unique opportunity for cancer screening programs to motivate individuals to get screened. However, we need a better understanding of what types of social media messages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are preferred. The objective of this study was to develop social media messages promoting CRC screening uptake to identify messages preferred by the target audience. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study and collected data through focus groups with Facebook users of screen-eligible age. Participants were presented with social media messages and asked to provide feedback. Messages were informed by the Health Belief Model, current evidence regarding screening communication and health communication and social media best practices. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysis was completed by two independent coders. If messages generated sufficient discussion, we developed a recommendation regarding the use of the message in a future social media campaign. Recommendations included: strongly consider using this message, consider using this message, proceed with caution, and do not use this message. General considerations about social media campaigns were also noted. Results: A total of 45 individuals participated in six focus groups. We developed recommendations for 7 out of the 18 messages tested; 1 was classified as strongly consider using this message, 4 as consider using this message and 2 as proceed with caution. The data suggest that participants preferred social media messages that were believed to be credible, educational, and with a positive or reassuring tone. Preferred messages tended to increase awareness about CRC risk and screening and prompted participants to ask questions, and to want to learn more about what they could do to lower their risk. Messages that were viewed as humorous, strange or offensive or that had a negative or excessively fearful tone were less well received by study participants. Conclusions: Facebook users prefer social media messages for CRC that have a positive or reassuring tone, are educational, and that have a credible ad sponsor. Campaign planners should proceed with caution when considering messages that use humor or a fearful tone to avoid undermining their campaign objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (BETTER) cluster randomized trial in primary care settings demonstrated a 30% improvement in adherence to evidence-based Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening (CDPS) activities. CDPS activities included healthy activities, lifestyle modifications, and screening tests. We present a protocol for the adaptation of BETTER to a public health setting, and testing the adaptation in a cluster randomized trial (BETTER HEALTH: Durham) among low income neighbourhoods in Durham Region, Ontario (Canada).Methods: The BETTER intervention consists of a personalized prevention visit between a participant and a prevention practitioner, which is focused on the participant's eligible CDPS activities, and uses Brief Action Planning, to empower the participant to set achievable short-term goals.Better Health: Durham aims to establish that the BETTER intervention can be adapted and proven effective among 40-64 year old residents of low income areas when provided in the community by public health nurses trained as prevention practitioners. Focus groups and key informant interviews among stakeholders and eligible residents of low income areas will inform the adaptation, along with feedback from the trial's Community Advisory Committee. We have created a sampling frame of 16 clusters composed of census dissemination areas in the lowest urban quintile of median household income, and will sample 10 clusters to be randomly allocated to immediate intervention or six month wait list control. Accounting for the clustered design effect, the trial will have 80% power to detect an absolute 30% difference in the primary outcome, a composite score of completed eligible CDPS actions six months after enrollment. The prevention practitioner will attempt to link participants without a primary care provider (PCP) to a local PCP. The implementation of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be evaluated by focus groups and key informant interviews.Discussion: The effectiveness of BETTER HEALTH: Durham will be tested for delivery in low income neighbourhoods by a public health department.Trial Registration: NCT03052959, registered February 10, 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data suggest the overuse of repeat colonoscopies, especially in patients at low risk for colorectal cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the time to repeat colonoscopies in low-risk patients aged 50-79 years old and the associated patient- and endoscopistrelated factors. Methods: All patients aged 50-79 years of age who underwent a complete outpatient colonoscopy with a negative result between 2000 and 2007 were identified from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan database. A colonoscopy performed within 5.5 years of follow-up after the index colonoscopy was considered an early repeat colonoscopy. Patient, endoscopist and endoscopy setting characteristics were recorded and their association with an early repeat colonoscopy was determined using an extended Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: The cohort consisted of 546 467 patients: 55.4% of the patients were female with a mean age of 61.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-61.2). The cumulative percentage of early repeat colonoscopy after 5.5 years was 33.7%. The rate decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% CI 0.34-0.36). General surgeons were associated with a higher risk of early repeat colonoscopy than gastroenterologists (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.25-1.28). Endoscopists practising in a nonhospital setting were more likely to perform an early repeat colonoscopy (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22-1.30) than endoscopists at a hospital. Interpretation: This study showed that there was overuse of early repeat colonoscopy in more than 30% of patients who were at low risk for colorectal cancer. The risk decreased significantly between 2000 and 2007 but was still greater than 20% in 2007. Our findings can be used to develop targeted educational interventions among subgroups of endoscopists with a higher rate of early repeat colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effectiveness of behaviorally informed, targeted invitations to standard invitations and to no invitation (control arm, primary analysis) were compared in the context of an organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Two multi-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in men (arms: male-specific, unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation) and in women (arms: unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation), were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Eligible persons aged 50-74, due for CRC screening, were randomized. Primary and secondary outcomes were completion of the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and uptake of any colorectal test, respectively, within 5 months of mailing. Impact of invitation type was assessed using logistic regression. Letters were mailed to 75,810 men and women; 38,673 males and 34,453 females were included in the analyses. Men who received the male-specific letter were most likely to screen with gFOBT compared to controls (odds ratio (OR) 7·24, 95% CI: 5·77, 9·09), followed by those receiving the unisex letter (OR 6·75, 95% CI: 5·37, 8·47) and the standard letter (OR 5·99, 95% CI: 4·76, 7·53). Women who received the unisex letter were most likely to be screened with gFOBT compared to controls (OR 7·07, 95% CI: 5·83, 8·59), followed by those receiving the standard letter (OR 6·76, 95% CI: 5·56, 8·21). In both trials, the findings were similar for the secondary outcome. Mailed invitations were effective for both men and women. With greater targeting using the behaviorally informed invitations, the magnitude of benefit relative to no invitation appeared to increase. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364895). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have increased over time in Ontario, Canada, immigrants continue to have lower rates of screening. This study examines the association between non-adherence to CRC screening and immigration, socio-demographic, healthcare utilization, and primary care physician characteristics among immigrants to Ontario. This is a population-based retrospective cross-sectional study that uses healthcare administrative databases housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Our cohort comprised immigrants aged 60 to 74 years who lived in Ontario on March 31, 2015 and who had been eligible for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for at least 10 years. The outcome was lack of adherence to CRC screening with any modality (fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy) on March 31, 2015. Our cohort contained 182,949 immigrants. Overall 70,134 (38%) individuals were not adherent to screening. Risk of non-adherence to CRC screening was higher among immigrants who were from low (adjusted relative risk [ARR] 1.35, 95%CI 1.28-1.42) or low-middle (ARR 1.27, 95%CI 1.24-1.30, population-attributable risk [PAR] 9.8%) income countries and refugees (ARR 1.09, 95%CI 1.06-1.11). Compared to those from the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, immigrants from most other world regions, particularly Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ARR 1.28, 95%CI 1.21-1.37), had higher risks of non-adherence. Non-immigration factors such as low healthcare use and lack of primary care enrolment also increased the risk of non-adherence to screening. These findings can be used to inform future efforts to improve uptake of CRC screening among immigrant groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To derive a taxonomy for colorectal cancer screening that advances Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and screening uptake.Design: Detailed publication review, multiple interviews with principal investigators (PIs) and collaboration with PIs as co-authors produced a CRCS intervention taxonomy. Semi-structured interview questions with PIs (Drs. Inadomi, Myers, Green, Gupta, Jerant and Ritvo) yielded details about trial conduct. Interview comparisons led to an iterative process informing serial interviews until a consensus was obtained on final taxonomy structure.Results: These taxonomy headings (Engagement Sponsor, Population Targeted, Alternative Screening Tests, Delivery Methods, and Support for Test Performance (EPADS)) were used to compare studies. Exemplary insights emphasized: 1) direct test delivery to patients; 2) linguistic-ethnic matching of staff to minority subjects; and 3) authorization of navigators to schedule or refer for colonoscopies and/or distribute stool blood tests during screening promotion.Conclusion: PIs of key RCTs (2012-2015) derived a CRCS taxonomy useful in detailed examination of CRCS promotion and design of future RCTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participation in cancer screening is critical to its effectiveness in reducing the burden of cancer. The Primary Care Screening Activity Report (PCSAR), an electronic report, was developed as an innovative audit and feedback tool to increase screening participation in Ontario's cancer screening programs. This study aims to assess its impact on patient screening participation. This study used a retrospective cohort design to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2014 PCSAR on screening participation in Ontario's three screening programs (breast, cervix and colorectal). The 3 cohorts comprised all participants eligible for each of the programs enrolled with a primary care physician in Ontario. Two exposures were evaluated for each cohort: enrollment with a physician who was registered to receive the PCSAR and enrollment with a registered physician who also logged into the PCSAR. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess the magnitude of the effect of PCSAR on participation, adjusting for participant and physician characteristics. Across all three screening programs, 63% of eligible physicians registered to receive the PCSAR and 38% of those registered logged-in to view it. Patients of physicians who registered were significantly more likely to participate in screening, with odds ratios ranging from 1.06 [1.04;1.09] to 1.15 [1.12;1.19]. The adjusted odds ratios associated with PCSAR log-in were 1.07 [1.03;1.12] to 1.18 [1.14;1.22] across all screening programs. Implementation of the PCSAR was associated with a small increase in screening participation. The PCSAR appears to be modestly effective in assisting primary care physicians in optimizing cancer screening participation among their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background ColonCancerCheck (CCC), Ontario's organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program, uses guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT). To reduce CRC-related mortality, persons with a positive gFOBT must have colonoscopy. We identified factors associated with failure to have colonoscopy within 6 months of a positive gFOBT. Methods Population-based, retrospective cohort analysis of CCC participants with positive gFOBT (April 2008 to December 2009) using health administrative data. Patient, physician and health care utilization factors associated with a lack of follow-up colonoscopy were identified using descriptive and multivariate analyses. Results There were 21,839 participants with a positive gFOBT; 14,091 (64%) had colonoscopy within 6 months. The strongest factors associated with failure to follow-up were recent colonoscopy (in 2 years prior vs. > 10 years or never, OR: 4.31, 95% C.I.: 3.82, 4.86), as well as repeat gFOBT (OR: 6.08, 95% C.I.: 5.46, 6.78) and hospital admission (OR: 4.35, 95% C.I.: 3.57, 5.26) in the follow-up period. Conclusion In the first 18 months of the CCC Program, 1/3 of those with a positive gFOBT did not have colonoscopy within 6 months. Identification of potentially modifiable factors associated with failure to follow up lay the groundwork for interventions to address this critical quality gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for high risk adenomas (HRAs) detected at screening colonoscopy based on readily available participant information. The cohort consisted of 3035 participants aged 50 to 74 years with no history of cancer who underwent a primary screening colonoscopy at a centralized colon cancer screening centre between 2008 and 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model was created using CRC risk factors identified from prior research. Model covariates were collected from a baseline questionnaire and included participant demographics (age and sex), lifestyle parameters (body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and vitamin D supplement use) and medical history (family history of CRC and diabetes). Mean participant age was 58.8 years, and 54.7% were male. 249 participants with HRAs were identified (8.2%). An adjusted c-statistic of 0.67 was calculated, and a specificity and negative predictive value of 97.2% (95% CI: 96.5-97.8) and 92.5% (95% CI: 92.2-92.8) for the detection of HRAs, respectively, were achieved using 20% predicted probability as a high-risk threshold. However, only a sensitivity of 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-16.8) was achieved. Our model has moderate predictive ability, with strengths in being able to rule out those with an absence of HRAs on screening colonoscopy. Maximizing screening efficiency through improved risk prediction can enhance resource allocation. Ultimately, this model has the potential to improve patient care by reducing unnecessary colonoscopies, limiting this invasive procedure to those most likely to have significant findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]