Dataset Information

Social Disadvantage, Healthcare Utilization, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Leveraging Longitudinal Patient Address and Health Records Data.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Social disadvantage predicts colorectal cancer outcomes across the cancer care continuum for many populations and places. For medically underserved populations, social disadvantage is likely intersectional-affecting individuals at multiple levels and through membership in multiple disadvantaged groups. However, most measures of social disadvantage are cross-sectional and limited to race, ethnicity, and income. Linkages between electronic health records (EHR) and external datasets offer rich, multilevel measures that may be more informative. METHODS:We identified urban safety-net patients eligible and due for colorectal cancer screening from the Parkland-UT Southwestern PROSPR cohort. We assessed one-time screening receipt (via colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical test) in the 18 months following cohort entry via the EHR. We linked EHR data to housing and Census data to generate measures of social disadvantage at the parcel- and block-group level. We evaluated the association of these measures with screening using multilevel logistic regression models controlling for sociodemographics, comorbidity, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS:Among 32,965 patients, 45.1% received screening. In adjusted models, residential mobility, residence type, and neighborhood majority race were associated with colorectal cancer screening. Nearly all measures of patient-level social disadvantage and healthcare utilization were significant. CONCLUSIONS:Address-based linkage of EHRs to external datasets may have the potential to expand meaningful measurement of multilevel social disadvantage. Researchers should strive to use granular, specific data in investigations of social disadvantage. IMPACT:Generating multilevel measures of social disadvantage through address-based linkages efficiently uses existing EHR data for applied, population-level research.

SUBMITTER: Hughes AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6279539 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Social Disadvantage, Healthcare Utilization, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Leveraging Longitudinal Patient Address and Health Records Data.

Hughes Amy E AE Tiro Jasmin A JA Balasubramanian Bijal A BA Skinner Celette Sugg CS Pruitt Sandi L SL

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20180822 12

<h4>Background</h4>Social disadvantage predicts colorectal cancer outcomes across the cancer care continuum for many populations and places. For medically underserved populations, social disadvantage is likely intersectional-affecting individuals at multiple levels and through membership in multiple disadvantaged groups. However, most measures of social disadvantage are cross-sectional and limited to race, ethnicity, and income. Linkages between electronic health records (EHR) and external datas ...[more]

PMID: 30135072

Similar Datasets

Project description:The prevalence of adolescent overweight and obesity (hereafter, simply "overweight") in the US has increased over the past several decades. Individually-targeted prevention and treatment strategies targeting individuals have been disappointing, leading some to propose leveraging social networks to improve interventions. We hypothesized that social network dynamics (social marginalization; homophily on body mass index, BMI) and the strength of peer influence would increase or decrease the proportion of network member (agents) becoming overweight over a simulated year, and that peer influence would operate differently in social networks with greater overweight. We built an agent-based model (ABM) using results from R-SIENA. ABMs allow for the exploration of potential interventions using simulated agents. Initial model specifications were drawn from Wave 1 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). We focused on a single saturation school with complete network and BMI data over two waves (n = 624). The model was validated against empirical observations at Wave 2. We focused on overall overweight prevalence after a simulated year. Five experiments were conducted: (1) changing attractiveness of high-BMI agents; (2) changing homophily on BMI; (3) changing the strength of peer influence; (4) shifting the overall BMI distribution; and (5) targeting dietary interventions to highly connected individuals. Increasing peer influence showed a dramatic decrease in the prevalence of overweight; making peer influence negative (i.e., doing the opposite of friends) increased overweight. However, the effect of peer influence varied based on the underlying distribution of BMI; when BMI was increased overall, stronger peer influence increased proportion of overweight. Other interventions, including targeted dieting, had little impact. Peer influence may be a viable target in overweight interventions, but the distribution of body size in the population needs to be taken into account. In low-obesity populations, strengthening peer influence may be a useful strategy.

Project description:BackgroundThe database used for the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) derives participant information from primary care records. Combining predictors with FOBTs has shown to improve referral decisions and accuracy. The richer data available from GP databases could be used to complement screening referral decisions by identifying those at greatest risk of colorectal cancer. We determined the availability of data for key predictors and whether this information could be used to inform more accurate screening referral decisions.MethodsAn English BCSP cohort was derived using the electronic notifications received from the BCSP database to GP records. The cohort covered a period between 13th May 2009 to 17th January 2017. Completeness of variables and univariable associations were assessed. Risk prediction models were developed using Cox regression and multivariable fractional polynomials with backwards elimination. Optimism adjusted performance metrics were reported. The sensitivity and specificity of a combined approach using the negative FOBT model plus FOBT positive patients was determined using a probability equivalent to a 3% PPV NICE guidelines level.Results292,059 participants aged 60-74 were derived for the BCSP screening cohort. A model including the screening test result had a C-statistic of 0.860, c-slope of 0.997, and R2 of 0.597. A model developed for negative screening results only had a C-statistic of 0.597, c-slope of 0.940, and R2 of 0.062. Risk predictors included in the models included; age, sex, alcohol consumption, IBS diagnosis, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, smoking status, previous negatives and whether a GP had ordered a blood test. For the combined screening approach, sensitivity increased slightly from 53.90% (FOBT only) to 58.82% but at the expense of an increased referral rate.ConclusionsThis research has identified several potential predictors for CRC in a BCSP population. A risk prediction model developed for BCSP FOBT negative patients was not clinically useful due to a low sensitivity and increased referral rate. The predictors identified in this study should be investigated in a refined algorithm combining the quantitative FIT result. Combining data from multiple sources enables fuller patient profiles using the primary care and screening database interface.

Project description:BackgroundEpidemiological studies utilize residential histories to assess environmental exposure risk. The validity from using commercially-sourced residential histories within national longitudinal studies remains unclear. Our study assessed predictors of non-agreement between baseline addresses from the commercially-sourced LexisNexis database and participants in the national longitudinal study, REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS). Additionally, we assessed differences in stroke risk by neighborhood socioeconomic score (nSES) based on participant reported address compared to nSES from LexisNexis/REGARDS matched baseline address.MethodsFrom January 2003-October 2007, REGARDS enrolled 30,239 black and white adults aged 45 and older within the continental United States and collected their baseline address. ArcGIS Desktop 10.5.1 with ESRI 2016 Business Analyst Data was used to geocode baseline addresses from LexisNexis and REGARDS. Logistic regression was used to estimate the likelihood that LexisNexis address matched REGARDS baseline address for each participant. Survival analysis was used to estimate association between nSES and incident stroke.ResultsApproximately 91% of REGARDS participants had a LexisNexis address. Of these geocoded addresses, 93% of REGARDS baseline addresses matched LexisNexis addresses. Odds of agreement between LexisNexis and REGARDS was higher for older-aged participants (OR = 1.02 per year, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02), blacks compared to whites (OR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.29), females compared to males (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.26), participants with an income of $34k-74k compared to an income less than $20k (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.89). Odds of agreement were lower for residents in Midwest compared to residents in the south (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.73, 0.94). No significant differences in nSES-stroke associations were observed between REGARDS only and LexisNexis/REGARDS matched addresses; however, differences in interactions were observed.ConclusionAgreement between LexisNexis and REGARDS addresses varied by sociodemographic groups, potentially introducing bias in studies reliant on LexisNexis alone for residential address data.

Project description:ImportanceScreening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in the United States has remained below the Healthy People 2020 goals, with evidence indicating that persistent screening disparities still exist. The US Department of Health and Human Services has emphasized cross-sectoral collaboration in aligning social determinants of health with public health and medical services. Examining the economics of intervening through these novel methods in the realm of cancer screening can inform program planners, health care providers, implementers, and policy makers.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions leveraging social determinants of health to improve screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer to guide implementation.Evidence reviewA systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Global Health, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete, EconLit, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), and Sociological Abstracts from January 1, 2004, to November 25, 2019. Included studies intervened on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States and reported intervention cost, incremental cost per additional person screened, and/or incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Risk of bias was assessed along with qualitative assessment of quality to ensure complete reporting of economic measures, data sources, and analytic methods. In addition, included studies with modeled outcomes had to define structural elements and sources for input parameters, distinguish between programmatic and literature-derived data, and assess uncertainty.FindingsThirty unique articles with 94 706 real and 4.21 million simulated participants satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The median intervention cost per participant was $123.87 (interquartile interval [IQI], $24.44-$313.19; 34 estimates). The median incremental cost per additional person screened was $250.37 (IQI, $44.67-$609.38; 17 estimates). Studies that modeled final economic outcomes had a median incremental cost per person of $122.96 (IQI, $46.96-$124.80; 5 estimates), a median incremental screening rate of 15% (IQI, 14%-20%; 5 estimates), and a median incremental QALY per person of 0.04 years (IQI, 0.006-0.06 year; 5 estimates). The median incremental cost per QALY gained of $3120.00 (IQI, $782.59-$33 600.00; 5 estimates) was lower than $50 000, an established, conservative threshold of cost-effectiveness.Conclusions and relevanceInterventions focused on social determinants of health to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening appear to be cost-effective for underserved, vulnerable populations in the United States. The increased screening rates were associated with earlier diagnosis and treatment and in improved health outcomes with significant gains in QALYs. These findings represent the latest economic evidence to guide implementation of these interventions, which serve the dual purpose of enhancing health equity and economic efficiency.

Project description:Interventions tailored to sociopsychological factors associated with health behaviors have promise for reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities, but limited research has assessed their impact in multiethnic populations. We examined whether an interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) tailored to expanded health belief model sociopsychological factors could promote colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample.We undertook a randomized controlled trial, comparing an IMCP tailored to colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, readiness, test preference, and experiences with a nontailored informational program, both delivered before office visits. The primary outcome was record-documented colorectal cancer screening during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postvisit sociopsychological factor status and discussion, as well as clinician recommendation of screening during office visits. We enrolled 1,164 patients stratified by ethnicity and language (49.3% non-Hispanic, 27.2% Hispanic/English, 23.4% Hispanic/Spanish) from 26 offices around 5 centers (Sacramento, California; Rochester and the Bronx, New York; Denver, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas).Adjusting for ethnicity/language, study center, and the previsit value of the dependent variable, compared with control patients, the IMCP led to significantly greater colorectal cancer screening knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness, test preference specificity, discussion, and recommendation. During the followup period, 132 (23%) IMCP and 123 (22%) control patients received screening (adjusted difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI -4.3 to 5.3). IMCP effects did not differ significantly by ethnicity/language.Sociopsychological factor tailoring was no more effective than nontailored information in encouraging colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample, despite enhancing sociopsychological factors and visit behaviors associated with screening. The utility of sociopsychological tailoring in addressing screening disparities remains uncertain.

Dataset Information

Social Disadvantage, Healthcare Utilization, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Leveraging Longitudinal Patient Address and Health Records Data.

Publications

Social Disadvantage, Healthcare Utilization, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: Leveraging Longitudinal Patient Address and Health Records Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure