Objective

Despite some progress in recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening adherence in the United States is still suboptimal, particularly among disadvantaged groups. In this study, we assessed the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and self-reported screening non-adherence (SNA) in a sample of racial/ethnic minorities living in San Francisco, California.

Design/methods

A total of 376 participants of the San Francisco version of the Health Information National Trends Survey (SF-HINTS) with ages 50-75 years were included in this cross-sectional study. SNA was defined as not reporting blood stool test within the past year and not reporting sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy within the past 10 years. Poisson regression models with robust variance estimators were used to evaluate the relation of SES with SNA, adjusting for measured confounders. Results are reported as prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results

Overall SNA was 40%. In multivariable models including all respondents, retired participants had significantly lower SNA prevalence than employed participants (PR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.26 0.83). In stratified analyses by race/ethnicity, Black respondents with less than high school (PR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.09, 3.43) and those with high school or equivalent (PR = 1.88, 95% CI = 1.16, 3.04) had significantly higher SNA prevalence than those with at least some college. Among non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islanders, those disabled had significantly higher prevalence of SNA as compared to employed people (PR = 4.26, 95% CI = 2.11, 8.60). None of the SES indicators were significantly associated to SNA among Hispanics.

Conclusions

Participants with lower SES characteristics were less likely to adhere to CRC screening guidelines and being retired was a predictor of compliance. There was evidence of heterogeneity in associations between SES and CRC screening by race/ethnicity. Life circumstances of retired people could provide insights for designing interventions aimed to improve CRC screening uptake in these priority groups. Future efforts should consider mechanisms underlying differences by race/ethnicity.

Purpose

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals in the United States are at increased risk of cancer compared to the non-SGM population. Understanding how SGM persons perceive cancer risk and their practices and preferences for accessing health information is key for improving the preventive and health care services they receive.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from the San Francisco Health Information National Trends Survey. SGM individuals were identified by self-report. Differences in cancer risk factors, cancer beliefs, and health information seeking were evaluated by SGM status using multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

Out of 1027 participants, 130 (13%) reported being SGM individuals. Current smoking (odds ratio [OR]=1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.24-3.01) and alcohol use (OR=1.69, 95% CI=1.10-2.59) were more common among SGM persons than among non-SGM persons. No differences by SGM status were observed in health information seeking behaviors, preferences, and cancer beliefs, but SGM participants reported significantly higher odds of feeling frustrated (OR=1.78, 95% CI=1.20-2.64) and having concerns about the quality of the information (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.03-2.31) during their most recent health information search.

Conclusions

Intervention efforts aimed at SGM individuals with current use of tobacco and/or alcohol should be expanded. SGM communities also need improved access to consistent, reliable, and accurate sources of health information. Their increased frustration when seeking health information and concerns about the quality of the information they find have important implications for SGM health and care, and the drivers of these differences merit further evaluation.

Background

In 2017, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) established the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program to provide technical assistance and financial support to improve CRC screening processes, and outcomes in a consortium of community health centers (CHCs) serving low-income communities in San Francisco. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the perceived influence of the support provided by the CRC Screening Program's Task Force on CRC screening processes and outcomes in these settings and to identify facilitators and barriers to SF CAN-supported CRC screening activities before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with consortium leaders, medical directors, quality improvement team members, and clinic screening champions. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed for themes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop the interview questions and organize the analysis.

Results

Twenty-two participants were interviewed. The most commonly cited facilitators of improved screening processes included the expertise, funding, screening resources, regular follow-up, and sustained engagement with clinic leaders provided by the task force. The most salient barriers identified were patient characteristics, such as housing instability; staffing challenges, such as being understaffed and experiencing high staff turnover; and clinic-level challenges, such as lack of ability to implement and sustain formalized patient navigation strategies, and changes in clinic priorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other competing health care priorities.

Conclusions

Implementing CRC screening programs in a consortium of CHCs is inherently challenging. Technical assistance from the Task Force was viewed positively and helped to mitigate challenges both before and during the pandemic. Future research should explore opportunities to increase the robustness of technical assistance offered by groups such as SF CAN to support cancer screening activities in CHCs serving low-income communities.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) are confronted with a difficult decision regarding whether to undergo definitive treatment or to pursue an active surveillance protocol. This is potentially further complicated by the possibility that patients and physicians may place different value on factors that influence this decision. We conducted a qualitative investigation to better understand patient and physician perceptions of factors influencing treatment decisions for low-risk PCa. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 43 racially and ethnically diverse patients diagnosed with low-risk PCa, who were identified through a population-based cancer registry, and 15 physicians who were selected to represent a variety of practice settings in the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. RESULTS: Patients and physicians both described several key individual (e.g., clinical) and interpersonal (e.g., healthcare communications) factors as important for treatment decision-making. Overall, physicians perceptions largely mirrored patients perceptions. First, we observed differences in treatment preferences by age and stage of life. At older ages, there was a preference for less invasive options. However, at younger ages, we found varying opinions among both patients and physicians. Second, patients and physicians both described concerns about side effects including physical functioning and non-physical considerations. Third, we observed differences in expectations and the level of difficulty for clinical conversations based on information needs and resources between patients and physicians. Finally, we discovered that patients and physicians perceived patients prior knowledge and the support of family/friends as facilitators of clinical conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the gap between patient and physician perceptions on the influence of clinical and communication factors on treatment decision-making is not large. The consensus we observed points to the importance of developing relevant clinical communication roadmaps as well as high quality and accessible patient education materials.