Search

Abstract Background The original ‘BETTER’ (Building on Existing Tools To Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care) approach consisted of a prevention-focused visit between participants aged 40–65 years and a “Prevention Practitioner” (PP), who empowered the participant to set achievable prevention and screening goals for cancers and chronic diseases. BETTER was successfully adapted for economically deprived communities (BETTER HEALTH) in Canada. Our objective was to conduct a review of guidelines in preparation for adapting the ‘BETTER HEALTH’ approach for younger adults aged 18–39 years living with lower income, a group known to have earlier mortality due to a higher prevalence of preventable chronic diseases than their peers with higher income. Methods We searched multiple electronic databases and grey literature for clinical practice guidelines on prevention/screening and included those that met the following criteria: published in English from 2008–2020 in Canada or any of the following countries (Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and England); and addressed prevention or screening. We assessed quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool and extracted data (publication details, recommendations, and Quality/Level of evidence as reported by authors) from sources with overall scores of 5 or higher. Final recommendations were compiled after harmonization with input from diverse stakeholders (co-investigators, PPs, and the Community Advisory Committee). Results We included a total of 85 guidelines, and developed a final list of 42 recommendations for 18–39 year-olds across 21 topics. Specific recommendations fell under the following topics: cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, lifestyle (alcohol; healthy nutrition/physical activity); healthy relationships and healthy sexuality, immunization, oral health, social determinants of health, and substance use. Conclusion We identified evidence-based guidelines on individual-level prevention/screening actions for adults 18–39 years old and relevant for those living with lower income which will directly inform development and implementation of the BETTER LIFE intervention.

Abstract Background The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. Methods We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. Conclusions Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. Trial registration #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Abstract Background Various studies have demonstrated gender disparities in workplace settings and the need for further intervention. This study identifies and examines evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions examining gender equity in workplace or volunteer settings. An additional aim was to determine whether interventions considered intersection of gender and other variables, including PROGRESS-Plus equity variables (e.g., race/ethnicity). Methods Scoping review conducted using the JBI guide. Literature was searched in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ERIC, Index to Legal Periodicals and Books, PAIS Index, Policy Index File, and the Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database from inception to May 9, 2022, with an updated search on October 17, 2022. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension to scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidance, Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Analysis (SIITHIA) checklist, and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) version 2 checklist. All employment or volunteer sectors settings were included. Included interventions were designed to promote workplace gender equity that targeted: (a) individuals, (b) organizations, or (c) systems. Any comparator was eligible. Outcomes measures included any gender equity related outcome, whether it was measuring intervention effectiveness (as defined by included studies) or implementation. Data analyses were descriptive in nature. As recommended in the JBI guide to scoping reviews, only high-level content analysis was conducted to categorize the interventions, which were reported using a previously published framework. Results We screened 8855 citations, 803 grey literature sources, and 663 full-text articles, resulting in 24 unique RCTs and one companion report that met inclusion criteria. Most studies (91.7%) failed to report how they established sex or gender. Twenty-three of 24 (95.8%) studies reported at least one PROGRESS-Plus variable: typically sex or gender or occupation. Two RCTs (8.3%) identified a non-binary gender identity. None of the RCTs reported on relationships between gender and other characteristics (e.g., disability, age, etc.). We identified 24 gender equity promoting interventions in the workplace that were evaluated and categorized into one or more of the following themes: (i) quantifying gender impacts; (ii) behavioural or systemic changes; (iii) career flexibility; (iv) increased visibility, recognition, and representation; (v) creating opportunities for development, mentorship, and sponsorship; and (vi) financial support. Of these interventions, 20/24 (83.3%) had positive conclusion statements for their primary outcomes (e.g., improved academic productivity, increased self-esteem) across heterogeneous outcomes. Conclusions There is a paucity of literature on interventions to promote workplace gender equity. While some interventions elicited positive conclusions across a variety of outcomes, standardized outcome measures considering specific contexts and cultures are required. Few PROGRESS-Plus items were reported. Non-binary gender identities and issues related to intersectionality were not adequately considered. Future research should provide consistent and contemporary definitions of gender and sex. Trial registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/x8yae .

Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50–74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15—December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016—March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % – 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % – 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.

The purpose of this policy briefing is to examine our health care systems through the lens of the COVID-19 pandemic and identify how we can strengthen health care in Canada post-pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has provided compelling evidence that substantive changes to our health care systems are needed. Specifically, the pandemic has emphasized structural inequities on a broad scale within Canadian society. These include systemic racial and socioeconomic inequities that must be addressed broadly, including in the delivery of health care. We make recommendations about what we can do to emerge stronger from the pandemic. While these recommendations are not novel, how they are framed and contextualized differs because of the problems in our health care system that have been highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic.The evidence is clear that socioeconomic circumstances, intergenerational trauma, adverse early life experiences, and educational opportunities are critical factors when it comes to health over the life course. Given the problems in the delivery of health care that the pandemic has revealed, we need a different approach. How health care was organized prior to the COVID-19 pandemic did not produce what people wanted and needed in terms of health care and outcomes. How do we emerge from COVID-19 with an effective, equitable, and resilient health care system for all Canadians? To address health inequities and emerge from the pandemic with strengthened health care in Canada, we must consider how Amartya Sen's capabilities framework on social well-being can be operationalized to achieve better health care and health outcomes. Specifically, we address the need to: strengthen primary care and improve access to primary care; utilize a community-embedded approach to care; and implement better integration across the care continuum, including integration between primary care and public health. Coherent governance and leadership that are charged with realizing benefits through collaboration will maximize outcomes and promote sustainability. Only when we provide access to high-quality culturally competent care that is centered around the individual and their needs will we be able to make true headway in addressing these long-standing health inequities.

Smoking cessation after a cancer diagnosis can significantly improve a person’s prognosis, treatment efficacy and safety, and quality of life. In 2012, Cancer Care Ontario (now part of Ontario Health) introduced a Framework for Smoking Cessation, to be implemented for new ambulatory cancer patients at the province’s 14 Regional Cancer Centres (RCCs). Over time, the program has evolved to become more efficient, use data for robust performance management, and broaden its focus to include new patient populations and additional data collection. In 2017, the framework was revised from a 5As to a 3As brief intervention model, along with an opt-out approach to referrals. The revised model was based on emerging evidence, feedback from stakeholders, and an interim program evaluation. Results showed an initial increase in referrals to cessation services. Two indicators (tobacco use screening and acceptance of a referral) are routinely monitored as part of Ontario Health’s system-wide performance management approach, which has been identified as a key driver of change among RCCs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many RCCs reported a decrease in these indicators. RCCs that were able to maintain a high level of smoking cessation activities during the pandemic offer valuable lessons, including the opportunity to swiftly leverage virtual care. Future directions for the program include capturing data on cessation outcomes and expanding the intervention to new populations. A focus on system recovery from COVID-19 will be paramount. Smoking cessation must remain a core element of high-quality cancer care, so that patients achieve the best possible health benefits from their treatments.

Purpose: To review the scientific literature seeking lessons for the COVID-19 era that could be learned from previous health services interruptions that affected the delivery of cancer screening services. Methods: A systematic search was conducted up to April 17, 2020, with no restrictions on language or dates and resulted in 385 articles. Two researchers independently assessed the list and discussed any disagreements. Once a consensus was achieved for each paper, those selected were included in the review. Results: Eleven articles were included. Three studies were based in Japan, two in the United States, one in South Korea, one in Denmark, and the remaining four offered a global perspective on interruptions in health services due to natural or human-caused disasters. No articles covered an interruption due to a pandemic. The main themes identified in the reviewed studies were coordination, communication, resource availability and patient follow-up. Conclusion: Lessons learned applied to the context of COVID-19 are that coordination involving partners across the health sector is essential to optimize resources and resume services, making them more resilient while preparing for future interruptions. Communication with the general population about how COVID-19 has affected cancer screening, measures taken to mitigate it and safely re-establish screening services is recommended. Use of mobile health systems to reach patients who are not accessing services and the application of resource-stratified guidelines are important considerations. More research is needed to explore best strategies for suspending, resuming and sustaining cancer screening programs, and preparedness for future disruptions, adapted to diverse health care systems.

Background and study aims We aimed to estimate the rate of hospital admissions for perforation and for post-polypectomy bleeding, after outpatient colonoscopy following a first positive fecal occult blood test screen through the population-based ColonCancerCheck program in Ontario, Canada. Patients and methods We identified all individuals aged 50 to 74 years with a first positive CCC gFOBT screening result from 2008 to 2017 who underwent outpatient colonoscopy ≤ 6 months later and who did not receive a diagnosis of CRC ≤ 24 months later. We identified inpatient hospital admissions for colonic perforation ≤ 7 days after and for post-polypectomy bleeding ≤ 14 days following colonoscopy. Results Among 121,626 individuals who underwent colonoscopy, the rate of perforation was 0.6 per 1000 from 2008 to 2012 and 0.4 per 1000 from 2013 to 2017. The rate was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years; those with comorbidities; when colonoscopy was performed by endoscopists other than gastroenterologists or endoscopists with low prior year volume; and when polypectomy was performed during colonoscopy. The rate of bleeding was 4.3 per 1000 and was elevated among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with comorbidity, and with complex polypectomy. Both outcomes were more common among those aged 70 to 74 years, those with a 5-year cumulative Charlson score ≥ 1, those with prior hospitalization for ischemic heart disease, and those with endoscopists whose prior year colonoscopy volume was in the three lower quartiles. Conclusions Colonic perforation and post-polypectomy bleeding, among participants of population-based colorectal screening programs who test positive in the absence of colorectal cancer, are infrequent but serious complications, which increase with participant age and comorbidity, and with endoscopist characteristics.

ObjectiveAlthough sedation improves patient experience during colonoscopy, there is great jurisdictional variability in sedative practices. The objective of this study was to develop practice recommendations for the use of moderate and deep sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy to facilitate standardisation of practice.DesignWe recruited 32 multidisciplinary panellists to participate in a modified Delphi process to establish consensus-based recommendations for the use of sedation in colonoscopy. Panel members participated in a values assessment survey followed by two rounds of anonymous online voting on preliminary practice recommendations. An inperson meeting was held between voting rounds to facilitate consensus-building. Consensus was defined as >60% agreement/disagreement with recommendation statements; >80% agreement/disagreement was considered indicative of strong consensus.ResultsTwenty-nine panellists participated in the values assessment survey. Panellists ranked all factors presented as important to the development of practice recommendations. The factor considered most important was patient safety. Patient satisfaction, procedural efficiency, and cost were considered less important. Strong consensus was achieved for all nine practice recommendations presented to the panel. These recommendations included that all endoscopists be able to perform colonoscopy with moderate sedation, that an endoscopist and a single trained nurse are sufficient for performing colonoscopy with moderate sedation, and that anaesthesia-provided deep sedation be used for select patients.ConclusionThe recommendations presented in this study were agreed on by a multidisciplinary group and provide guidance for the use of sedation in routine hospital-based colonoscopy. Standardised sedation practices will promote safe, effective, and efficient colonoscopy for all patients.

Purpose The Colon Cancer Screening Centre (CCSC) biorepository (Calgary, Canada) supports a wide range of research topics related to colorectal cancer (CRC) by collecting, and storing biospecimens (blood, urine, normal colon tissue) from consenting patient participants. Housing unique biospecimens along with detailed participant lifestyle and health history questionnaire data, the CCSC biorepository can support a variety of research related to CRC risk factors, biomarkers, genetic causes and more.Participants Currently, 2292 average risk CRC patients have consented to participate in the CCSC cohort and have provided stored biospecimens. The collected samples and data provide important high-quality materials for research, discovery and evaluation related to CRC screening and carcinogenesis and is available for access by outside researchers. In addition to biological samples, the CCSC collects detailed patient information on their lifestyle, physical activity and dietary patterns through questionnaires at the time of their enrolment.Findings to date The majority of participants (75%) are between 50 and 64 years of age. Women make up 46% (1055) of the cohort. Additional characteristics of the cohort included 44% reporting a body mass index of 25–30 kg/m2 (overweight), 53% having never smoked tobacco and 13% having a family member with CRC.Future plans The CCSC cohort plans to include the recruitment of high risk CRC cohorts. High-risk participants would comprise patients with a positive faecal immunochemical test and family history of CRC.

Background: In their landmark report on the “Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease” (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of “screening governance organizations” to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance.

Abstract Quitting smoking after a diagnosis of cancer results in greater response to treatment and decreased risk of disease recurrence and second primary cancers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential cost‐effectiveness of two smoking cessation approaches: the current basic smoking cessation program consisting of screening for tobacco use, advice, and referral; and a best practice smoking cessation program that includes the current basic program with the addition of pharmacological therapy, counseling, and follow‐up. A Markov model was constructed that followed 65‐year‐old smokers with cancer over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities and mortality estimates were obtained from the published literature. Costs were obtained from standard costing sources in Ontario and reports. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted to address parameter uncertainties. For smokers with cancer, the best practice smoking cessation program was more effective and more costly than the basic smoking cessation program. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of the best practice smoking cessation program compared to the basic smoking cessation program was $3367 per QALY gained and $5050 per LY gained for males, and $2050 per QALY gained and $4100 per LY gained for females. Results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of mortality for former and current smokers, the probability of quitting smoking through participation in the program and smoking‐attributable costs. The study results suggested that a best practice smoking cessation program could be a cost‐effective option. These findings can support and guide implementation of smoking cessation programs.

Abstract 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 Background The risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) varies around the world and between females and males. We aimed to compare the risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario, Canada, to its general population. Methods We used an exposure-control matched design. We identified persons in the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada Permanent Resident Database with first eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan between July 1, 1991 and June 30, 2008 at age 40 years or older, and matched five controls by year of birth and sex on the immigrant’s first eligibility date. We identified CRC from the Ontario Cancer Registry between the index date and December 31, 2014. All analyses were stratified by sex. We calculated crude and relative rates of CRC. We estimated risk of CRC over time by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared immigrants to controls in age and sex stratified strata using log-rank tests. We modeled the hazard of CRC using Cox proportional hazards regression, accounting for within-cluster correlation by a robust sandwich variance estimation approach, and assessed an interaction with time since eligibility. Results Among females, 1877 cases of CRC were observed among 209,843 immigrants, and 16,517 cases among 1,049,215 controls; the crude relative rate among female immigrants was 0.623. Among males, 1956 cases of CRC were observed among 191,792 immigrants and 18,329 cases among 958,960 controls; the crude relative rate among male immigrants was 0.582.. Comparing immigrants to controls in all age and sex stratified strata, the log rank test p = 75 years at index, where p = 0.01. The age-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for CRC among female immigrants was 0.63 (95% CI 0.59, 0.67) during the first 10 years, and 0.66 (95% CI 0.59, 0.74) thereafter. Among male immigrants the age-adjusted HR = 0.55 (95% CI 0.52, 0.59) during the first 10 years and increased to 0.63 (95% CI 0.57, 0.71) thereafter. The adjusted HR > = 1 only among immigrants born in Europe and Central Asia. Conclusions The risk of CRC among immigrants to Ontario relative to controls varies by origin and over time since immigration.

Background. The goal of this study is to examine utilization of early repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure. Methods. We identified persons having repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months following outpatient colonoscopy without prior colonoscopy ≤ 5 years or prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We modeled repeat colonoscopy using a generalized estimating equation with an exchangeable correlation structure to account for clustering of patients by endoscopist. Results. The population included 334,663 persons, 7,892 (2.36%) of whom had an early repeat colonoscopy within 6 months. Overall, endoscopist prior year colonoscopy volume was inversely related to repeat ≤ 6 months. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months varied by the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy (adjusted OR = 1.41 (95% CI 1.29–1.55)) at nonhospital facilities compared to teaching or community hospitals. Among those who had polypectomy or biopsy, the adjusted OR for early repeat ≤ 6 months was elevated among those whose index colonoscopy was at a nonhospital facility (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.30–1.60), compared to those at a teaching hospital or community hospital. Conclusions. Repeat colonoscopy ≤ 6 months after an index procedure is associated with the clinical setting of the index colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND:The ColonCancerCheck screening program for colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario, Canada, is considering switching from biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening between age 50-74 years to the more sensitive, but also less specific fecal immunochemical test (FIT). The aim of this study is to estimate whether the additional benefits of FIT screening compared to gFOBT outweigh the additional costs and harms. METHODS:We used microsimulation modeling to estimate quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs of gFOBT and FIT, compared to no screening, in a cohort of screening participants. We compared strategies with various age ranges, screening intervals, and cut-off levels for FIT. Cost-efficient strategies were determined for various levels of available colonoscopy capacity. RESULTS:Compared to no screening, biennial gFOBT screening between age 50-74 years provided 20 QALYs at a cost of CAN$200,900 per 1,000 participants, and required 17 colonoscopies per 1,000 participants per year. FIT screening was more effective and less costly. For the same level of colonoscopy requirement, biennial FIT (with a high cut-off level of 200 ng Hb/ml) between age 50-74 years provided 11 extra QALYs gained while saving CAN$333,300 per 1000 participants, compared to gFOBT. Without restrictions in colonoscopy capacity, FIT (with a low cut-off level of 50 ng Hb/ml) every year between age 45-80 years was the most cost-effective strategy providing 27 extra QALYs gained per 1000 participants, while saving CAN$448,300. INTERPRETATION:Compared to gFOBT screening, switching to FIT at a high cut-off level could increase the health benefits of a CRC screening program without considerably increasing colonoscopy demand.

Although colorectal cancer is a leading cause of death in Canada, it is curable if detected in the early stages. Flexible sigmoidoscopy has been shown to reduce the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer in patients who are at average risk for this disease and, therefore, is an appropriate screening intervention. Moreover, it may be performed by nonphysicians. A program to enable registered nurses to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy to increase colorectal cancer screening capacity in Ontario was developed. This program incorporated practical elements learned from other jurisdictions as well as specific regional considerations to fit within the health care system of Ontario. The nurses received structured didactic and simulation training before performing sigmoidoscopies on patients under physician supervision. After training, nurses were evaluated by two assessors for their ability to perform complete sigmoidoscopies safely and independently. To date, 17 nurses have achieved independence in performing flexible sigmoidoscopy at 14 sites. In total, nurses have screened >7000 Ontarians, with a cancer detection rate of 5.1 per 1000 screened, which is comparable with rates in other jurisdictions and with sigmoidoscopy performed by gastroenterologists, surgeons and other trained nonphysicians. We have shown, therefore, that with proper training and program structure, registered nurses are able to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in a safe and thorough manner resulting in a significant increase in access to colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND Open-access (OA) colonoscopy may increase efficiency and decrease wait times; however, because the patient is seen for the first time at the endoscopy appointment, previous processes, such as information about the procedure, preparation and appropriate triage, may be suboptimal.

BACKGROUND: Differences between American (United States [US]) and European guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance may create confusion for the practicing clinician. Under- or overutilization of surveillance colonoscopy can impact patient care.

Background. Audit and feedback (A/F) reports are one of the few knowledge translation activities that can effect change in physician behavior. In this study, we pilot-tested an endoscopist A/F report to elicit opinions about the proposed report’s usability, acceptability and usefulness, and implications for knowledge translation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with eleven endoscopists in Ontario, Canada. We tested an A/F report template comprising 9 validated, accepted colonoscopy quality indicators populated with simulated data. Interview transcripts were coded using techniques such as constant comparison and themes were identified inductively over several team meetings. Results. Four interrelated themes were identified: (1) overall perceptions of the A/F report; (2) accountability and consequences for poor performance; (3) motivation to change/improve skills; and (4) training for performance enhancement and available resources. The A/F report was well received; however, participants cited some possible threats to the report’s effectiveness including the perceived threat of loss of privileges or licensing and the potential for the data to be dismissed. Conclusions. Participants agreed that A/F has the potential to improve colonoscopy performance. However, in order to be effective in changing physician behavior, A/F must be thoughtfully implemented with attention to the potential concerns of its recipients.

Background. This work examines the occurrence of interval colorectal cancers (CRCs) in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck (CCC) program. We define interval CRC as CRC diagnosed within 2 years following normal guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT). Methods. Persons aged 50–74 who completed a baseline CCC gFOBT kit in 2008 and 2009, without a prior history of CRC, or recent colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or gFOBT, were identified. Rates of CRC following positive and normal results at baseline and subsequent gFOBT screens were computed and overall survival was compared between those following positive and normal results. Results. Interval CRC was diagnosed within 24 months following the baseline screen among 0.16% of normals and following the subsequent screen among 0.18% of normals. Interval cancers comprised 38.70% of CRC following the baseline screen and 50.86% following the subsequent screen. Adjusting for age and sex, the hazard ratio (HR) for death following interval cancer compared to CRC following positive result was 1.65 (1.32, 2.05) following the first screen and 1.71 (1.00, 2.91) following the second screen. Conclusion. Interval CRCs following gFOBT screening comprise a significant proportion of CRC diagnosed within 2 years after gFOBT testing and are associated with a higher risk of death.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in Canadian men and women – accounting for almost 12% of all cancer deaths. In Ontario, it is estimated that 8100 persons were diagnosed with CRC in 2011, and 3250 died from the disease. CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world. Screening offers the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario’s Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) Guidelines Expert Panel, which was convened in September 2010 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The purpose of the present guideline is to evaluate the existing evidence concerning FIT to inform the decision on how to replace the current guaiac fecal occult blood test with FIT in the Ontario ColonCancerCheck Program. Eleven articles were included in the present guideline, comprising two systematic reviews, five articles reporting on three randomized controlled trials and reports of four other studies. Additionally, one laboratory study was obtained that reported on several parameters of FIT tests that helped to inform the present recommendation. The performance of FIT is superior to the standard guaiac fecal occult blood test in terms of screening participation rates and the detection of CRC and advanced adenoma. Given greater specimen instability with the use of FIT, a pilot study should be undertaken to determine how to implement the FIT in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Previously developed screening colonoscopy algorithms based on diagnostic and endoscopy procedural variables have not been sufficiently accurate for use in epidemiological and health services research.

BACKGROUND: Increasing demand combined with limited capacity has resulted in long wait times for average-risk adults referred for screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer. Management of patients on these growing wait lists is an emerging clinical issue.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and the Canadian Digestive Health Foundation published guidelines on colon cancer screening in 2004. Subsequent to the publication of these guidelines, many advances have occurred, thereby necessitating a review of the existing guidelines in the context of new technologies and clinical knowledge. The assembled guideline panel recognized three recent American sets of guidelines and identified seven issues that required comment from a Canadian perspective. These issues included, among others, the role of program-based screening, flexible sigmoidoscopy, computed tomography colonography, barium enema and quality improvement. The panel also provided context for the selection of the fecal immunochemical test as the fecal occult blood test of choice, and the relative role of colonoscopy as a primary screening tool. Recommendations were also provided for an upper age limit for colon cancer screening, whether upper endoscopy should be performed following a negative colonoscopy for a positive fecal occult blood test and when colon cancer screening should resume following negative colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Determining whether a colonoscopy is performed for screening or nonscreening purposes can facilitate clinical practice and research. However, there is no simple method to determine the colonoscopy indication using patient medical files or health administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is being increasingly performed in facilities outside of hospitals. Regulation of these facilities is variable, and concerns regarding the quality of procedures in nonhospital (NH) settings have been raised. Further study is needed to better understand endoscopic practice in these facilities.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a population-based study on the provision of large bowel endoscopic services in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the proportion of individuals with a new diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Ontario in whom the cancer was screen detected. The secondary objectives were to determine the cancer stage at diagnosis and the indications for the procedure in patients who received their first colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine who provides gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada and to understand provincial and regional differences in endoscopy providers.

Colorectal cancer is a significant health burden. Several screening options exist that can detect colorectal cancer at an early stage, leading to a more favourable prognosis. However, despite years of knowledge on best practice, screening rates are still very low in Canada, particularly in Ontario. The present paper reports on efforts to increase the flexible sigmoidoscopy screening capacity in Ontario by training nurses to perform this traditionally physician-performed procedure. Drawing on American, British and local experience, a professional regulatory framework was established, and training curriculum and assessment criteria were developed. Training was initiated at Princess Margaret Hospital and Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Ontario. (During the study, Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre was deamalgamated into two separate hospitals: Women’s College Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.) Six registered nurses participated in didactic, simulator and practical training. These nurses performed a total of 77 procedures in patients, 23 of whom had polyps detected and biopsied. Eight patients were advised to undergo colonoscopy because they had one or more neoplastic polyps. To date, six of these eight patients have undergone colonoscopy, one patient has moved out of the province and another patient is awaiting the procedure. Classifying the six patients according to the most advanced polyp histology, one patient had a negative colonoscopy (no polyps found), one patient’s polyps were hyperplastic, one had a tubular adenoma, two had advanced neoplasia (tubulovillous adenomas) and one had adenocarcinoma. All these lesions were excised completely at colonoscopy. Overall, many difficulties were anticipated and addressed in the development of the training program; ultimately, the project was affected most directly by challenges in encouraging family physicians to refer patients to the program. As health human resource strategies continue to evolve, it is believed that lessons learned from experience make an important contribution to the knowledge of how nontraditional health services can be organized and delivered.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario FOBT Project is a pilot study of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) for colorectal cancer screening conducted among age-eligible volunteers (50 to 75 years) in 12 of 37 public health regions in Ontario.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cause of non-tobacco-related cancer deaths in Canadian men and women, accounting for 10% of all cancer deaths. An estimated 7800 men and women will be diagnosed with CRC, and 3250 will die from the disease in Ontario in 2007. Given that CRC incidence and mortality rates in Ontario are among the highest in the world, the best opportunity to reduce this burden of disease would be through screening. The present report describes the findings and recommendations of Cancer Care Ontario’s Colonoscopy Standards Expert Panel, which was convened in March 2006 by the Program in Evidence-Based Care. The recommendations will form the basis of the quality assurance program for colonoscopy delivered in support of Ontario’s CRC screening program.

The esophagus can be involved in human immune deficiency virus (HIV) infection. Esophageal ulcers can occur as part of an acute (primary) HIV infection syndrome. ln addition. the esophagus can be involved with the neoplasms associated with acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) – both Kaposi's sarcoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Opportunistic infections may also involve the esophagus, most commonly candida and cytomegalovirus infection. It is important for gastroenterologists to be aware of the clinical features of these lesions and to be ready to carry out endoscopy to diagnose these lesions correctly.