Preventing Chronic Disease | Promotion and Provision of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees and Nongrantees, 2011–2012 - CDC
Promotion and Provision of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees and Nongrantees, 2011–2012
Annette E. Maxwell, DrPH; Peggy A. Hannon, PhD; Cam Escoffery, PhD; Thuy Vu, MPH; Marlana Kohn, MPH; Sally W. Vernon, PhD; Amy DeGroff, PhD
Suggested citation for this article: Maxwell AE, Hannon PA, Escoffery C, Vu T, Kohn M, Vernon SW, et al. Promotion and Provision of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees and Nongrantees, 2011–2012. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:140183. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140183
.
.PEER REVIEWED
Abstract
Introduction
Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).
Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).
Methods
We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.
We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.
Results
CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).
CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).
Conclusion
Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program’s potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.
Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program’s potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank CRCCP and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program grantees for their participation in the survey. This publication was supported by CDC and the National Cancer Institute through the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network, a network within CDC’s Prevention Research Centers Program (University of California at Los Angeles, U48 DP001934; University of Washington, U48DP001911; Emory University, U48DP001909; University of Texas at Houston, U48DP001949).
Author Information
Corresponding Author: Annette E. Maxwell, DrPH, University of California at Los Angeles, Fielding School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, 650 Charles Young Dr. South, A2-125 CHS, Box 956900, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900. Telephone: 310-794-9282. E-mail: amaxwell@ucla.edu.
Author Affiliations: Peggy A. Hannon, Thuy Vu, Marlana Kohn, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Cam Escoffery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia; Sally W. Vernon, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Texas; Amy DeGroff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario