142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition

Home Events & Meetings Annual Meeting Schedule & Program

Online Program

Annual Meeting Recordings are now available for purchase

304585
Colorectal cancer screening promotion and provision by Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees

142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition (November 15 - November 19, 2014): http://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/annual
Sunday, November 16, 2014

Annette E. Maxwell, DrPH , Cancer Prevention and Control Research, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA
Peggy A. Hannon, PhD, MPH , Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Cam Escoffery, PhD , Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA
Thuy Vu, MPH , University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Marlana Kohn, MPH , Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Sally W. Vernon, PhD , Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health, Houston, TX
Amy DeGroff, MPH , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
Background: Twenty-nine states and tribal organizations receive funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by (1) promoting CRC screening population-wide using evidence-based approaches (EBAs) and (2) providing CRC screening to the un/underinsured. This analysis examines the implementation of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) and includes a comparison group of unfunded organizations.

Methods: An online survey was conducted in fall 2012 that asked the 29 CRCCP grantees about CRC screening activities in the 3rd year of the program (7/2011-6/2012).  The comparison group included 24 Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program grantees that did not receive CRCCP funding; they were asked about CRC prevention and control activities funded by other sources.

Results: CRCCP grantees were more likely than unfunded sites to use the following EBAs to promote CRC screening: small media - 97% of grantees versus 50% of unfunded sites; client reminders - 76% versus 21%; reducing structural barriers - 59% versus 25%; provider reminders - 38% versus 17%; provider assessment and feedback - 45% versus 12%. All grantees provided CRC screening but only 50% of the unfunded sites.  The two groups also differed with respect to their partnerships for screening provision, use of patient navigators, recruitment of patients, professional development and other activities. 

Conclusions:  CRCCP grantees implemented EBAs promoting CRC screening at a higher rate than unfunded sites. Both groups were equally likely to implement other CRC promotion approaches, suggesting that CRCCP funding and support was key to increasing EBA use.

Learning Areas:

Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Implementation of health education strategies, interventions and programs

Learning Objectives:
Identify evidence-based strategies for promoting colorectal cancer screening. Describe system-level activities targeting clinics and providers that can support efforts to promote colorectal cancer screening.

Keyword(s): Cancer Prevention and Screening, Evaluation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am a professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health and one of the Co-Investigator of the UCLA Prevention Research Center who has participated in the evaluation of the CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program for the last 3 years.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

Back to: 2043.0: Promoting Health and Preventing Disease through Screening and Vaccination