Dataset Information

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers. METHODS: We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured interviews, we asked patients to describe factors influencing their screening decisions. For each unscreened patient, we asked his or her physician to describe barriers to screening. We conducted patient interviews in English (n = 8), Spanish (n = 2), Portuguese (n = 5), Portuguese Creole (n = 1), and Haitian Creole (n = 7). We audiotaped and transcribed the interviews, and then identified major themes in the interviews. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: 1) Unscreened patients cited lack of trust in doctors as a barrier to screening whereas few physicians identified this barrier; 2) Unscreened patients identified lack of symptoms as the reason they had not been screened; 3) A doctor's recommendation, or lack thereof, significantly influenced patients' decisions to be screened; 4) Patients, but not their physicians, cited fatalistic views about cancer as a barrier. Conversely, physicians identified competing priorities, such as psychosocial stressors or comorbid medical illness, as barriers to screening. In this culturally diverse group of patients seen at community health centers, similar barriers to screening were reported by patients of different backgrounds, but physicians perceived other factors as more important. CONCLUSION: Further study of these barriers is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Lasser KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2373875 | biostudies-other | 2008

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study.

Lasser Karen E KE Ayanian John Z JZ Fletcher Robert H RH Good Mary-Jo DelVecchio MJ

BMC family practice 20080227

<h4>Background</h4>Colorectal cancer screening rates are low among disadvantaged patients; few studies have explored barriers to screening in community health centers. The purpose of this study was to describe barriers to/facilitators of colorectal cancer screening among diverse patients served by community health centers.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified twenty-three outpatients who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening and their 10 primary care physicians. Using in-depth semi-structured in ...[more]

PMID: 18304342

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) continues to be a major cause of death in the U.S. despite the availability of effective screening tools. U.S. Latinos have lower rates of CRC screening and higher rates of death due to colorectal disease compared to non-Hispanic whites. Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) serve medically underserved populations, including many Latino patients. Given the low CRC screening rates, identifying culturally sensitive and cost-effective methods of promoting screening is a priority for many FQHCs.MethodsWe interviewed FQHC leaders and providers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation of a multilevel, multicomponent (ML-MC) CRC screening intervention (i.e., promotor navigation and group-based education) in FQHCs. A rapid qualitative analysis approach was used to identify themes organized according to the following CFIR constructs: intervention characteristics, outer and inner settings, and characteristics of the individual.ResultsWe completed interviews with 13 healthcare professionals in leadership positions at six FQHCs. The participating FQHCs perceived the ML-MC screening CRC program as feasible and expressed interest in implementing the program at their sites. Facilitators included financial incentives for increasing screening rates, the need for patient education programming, and involving promotores to support the work of clinical teams. Barriers included concerns about available resources to implement new programs, lack of federal reimbursement for health education, competing priorities of other health concerns, and the need for more resources for confirmatory screening and treatment following a positive screen.ConclusionsFQHCs provide essential primary care to millions of underserved patients in the U.S. and have the ability and motivation to provide screenings for colorectal cancer. Partnering with an academic institution to deliver a group-based, promotor-led CRC screening intervention for patients not up to date with screening could help increase screening rates. By identifying the specific barriers and facilitators to implementing CRC intervention, findings suggest that group-based, promotor-led interventions are a promising approach.

Project description:IntroductionLittle is known about what clinic-level factors differentiate community health centers that achieve high performance on cancer-preventive care metrics. This study aims to describe the longitudinal trends in the delivery of 3 cancer-preventive care metrics (cervical and colorectal cancer screenings and tobacco-cessation intervention) and define and compare community health centers with high cancer-preventive care performance with those with low cancer-preventive care performance.MethodsThis observational study used 2012-2019 community health center data (N=933) from the Uniform Data System. High/low performance was based on Healthy People 2020 targets and sample distribution. For each cancer-preventive care metric, the percentage of community health centers that met high (≥70.5% at cervical or colorectal cancer screening or >80% tobacco-cessation intervention) and low thresholds at 1, 2, and all the 3 screenings was estimated. Multivariable generalized estimating equations logistic regression modeling was used to assess the community health center‒level factors associated with screening performance.ResultsThe community health centers' performance for tobacco-cessation intervention remained at ≥80%, with a small increase over time. Performance for cervical cancer screening remained unchanged with about 50% of patients screened. Colorectal cancer screening performance increased from around 30% in 2012 to 44% in 2019. Very few community health centers reached high performance (3%) in all the 3 indicators, and 13% of community health centers were high in any 2 of the outcomes in 2019. Higher patient volume, a greater proportion of Hispanic patients, fewer uninsured patients, and community health centers located in the Northeast region were associated with high performance in 2019.ConclusionsVery few community health centers meet all Healthy People 2020 goals in cancer screenings and may struggle to achieve the 2030 goals. Very few indicators differentiated high performers from low performers.

Project description:BackgroundAdoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems?MethodsDuring the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts.ResultsExploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test.ConclusionsThis description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Project description:BackgroundRecommended annual diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening for people with diabetes has low rates in the USA, especially in underserved populations. Telemedicine DR screening (TDRS) in primary care clinics could expand access and increase adherence. Despite this potential, studies have observed high variability in TDRS rates among clinics and over time, highlighting the need for implementation supports. Previous studies of determinants of TDRS focus on patients' perspectives, with few studies targeting upstream multi-level barriers and facilitators. Addressing this gap, this qualitative study aimed to identify and evaluate multi-level perceived determinants of TDRS in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), to inform the development of targeted implementation strategies.MethodsWe developed a theory-based semi-structured interview tool based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We conducted 22 key informant interviews with professionals involved in TDRS (administrators, clinicians, staff). The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reported barriers and facilitators were organized into emergent themes and classified according to CFIR constructs. Constructs influencing TDRS implementation were rated for each study site and compared across sites by the investigators.ResultsProfessionals identified 21 main barriers and facilitators under twelve constructs of the five CFIR domains. Several identified themes were novel, whereas others corroborated previous findings in the literature (e.g., lack of time and human resources, presence of a champion). Of the 21 identified themes, 13 were classified under the CFIR's Inner Setting domain, specifically under the constructs Compatibility and Available Resources. Themes under the Outer Setting domain (constructs External Incentives and Cost) were primarily perceived by administrators, whereas themes in other domains were perceived across all professional categories. Two Inner Setting (Leadership Engagement, Goals and Feedback) and two Process (Champion, Engaging) constructs were found to strongly distinguish sites with high versus low TDRS performance.ConclusionsThis study classified barriers and facilitators to TDRS as perceived by administrators, clinicians, and staff in FQHCs, then identified CFIR constructs that distinguished high- and low-performance clinics. Implementation strategies such as academic detailing and collection and communication of program data and successes to leadership; engaging of stakeholders through involvement in implementation planning; and appointment of intervention champions may therefore improve TDRS implementation and sustainment in resource-constrained settings.

Project description:BackgroundLimited health literacy is linked with poor health behaviors, limited health care access, and poor health outcomes. Improving individual and population health outcomes requires understanding and addressing barriers to promoting health literacy.MethodsUsing the socio-ecological model as a guiding framework, this qualitative study (Phase 1 of a larger ongoing project) explored the interpersonal and organizational levels that may impact the health literacy levels of patients seeking care at federally qualified community health centers (FQCHCs) in Rhode Island. Focus groups were conducted with FQCHC employees (n = 37) to explore their perceptions of the health literacy skills of their patients, health literacy barriers patients encounter, and possible strategies to increase health literacy. The focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed, and transcripts were coded using a process of open, axial, and selective coding. Codes were grouped into categories, and the constant comparative approach was used to identify themes.ResultsEight unique themes centered on health literacy, sources of health information, organizational culture's impact, challenges from limited health literacy, and suggestions to ameliorate the impact of limited health literacy. All focus group participants were versed in health literacy and viewed health literacy as impacting patients' health status. Participants perceived that some patients at their FQCHC have limited health literacy. Participants spoke of themselves and of their FQCHC addressing health literacy through organizational- and provider-level strategies. They also identified additional strategies (e.g., training staff and providers on health literacy, providing patients with information that includes graphics) that could be adopted or expanded upon to address and promote health literacy.ConclusionsStudy findings suggest that strategies may need to be implemented at the organizational-, provider-, and patient- level to advance health literacy. The intervention phase of this project will explore intervention strategies informed by study results, and could include offering health literacy training to providers and staff to increase their understanding of health literacy to include motivation to make and act on healthy decisions and strategies to address health literacy, including the use of visual aids.

Dataset Information

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study.

Publications

Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets