Research ArticleOriginal Research

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics

Amanda F. Petrik, Jennifer Coury, Jean Hiebert Larson, Brittany Badicke, Gloria D. Coronado and Melinda M. Davis
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine February 2023, 36 (1) 118-129; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.220216R1

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rogers CR,
    2. Blackburn BE,
    3. Huntington M,
    4. et al
    . Rural-urban disparities in colorectal cancer survival and risk among men in Utah: a statewide population-based study. Cancer Causes Control 2020;31:241–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Shete S,
    2. Deng Y,
    3. Shannon J
    , Rural Workgroup of the Population Health Assessment in Cancer Center Catchment Areas Initiativeet al. Differences in breast and colorectal cancer screening adherence among women residing in urban and rural communities in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2128000.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kurani SS,
    2. McCoy RG,
    3. Lampman MA,
    4. et al
    . Association of neighborhood measures of social determinants of health with breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates in the US Midwest. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3:e200618.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. D'Andrea E,
    2. Ahnen DJ,
    3. Sussman DA,
    4. Najafzadeh M
    . Quantifying the impact of adherence to screening strategies on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer Med 2020;9:824–36.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Nielson CM,
    2. Vollmer WM,
    3. Petrik AF,
    4. Keast EM,
    5. Green BB,
    6. Coronado GD
    . Factors affecting adherence in a pragmatic trial of annual fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer. J Gen Intern Med 2019;34:978–85.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Freeman M,
    3. Shannon J,
    4. et al
    . A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States - How, what and when? BMC Cancer 2018;18:40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Peterson LE,
    2. Litaker DG
    . County-level poverty is equally associated with unmet health care needs in rural and urban settings. J Rural Health 2010;26:373–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.
    National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM). Rural health in America: How shifting populations leave people behind. 2022.
  9. 9.
    1. Zahnd WE,
    2. James AS,
    3. Jenkins WD,
    4. et al
    . Rural-urban differences in cancer incidence and trends in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018;27:1265–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. 10.
    1. Matthews KA,
    2. Croft JB,
    3. Liu Y,
    4. et al
    . Health-related behaviors by urban-rural county classification–United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017;66:1–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About rural health. 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ruralhealth/about.html.
  12. 12.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Nambiar S,
    3. Mayorga ME,
    4. et al
    . Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees. Prev Med 2019;129s:105836.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Petrik AF,
    3. Vollmer WM,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of a mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach program in community health clinics: The STOP CRC cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1174.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Mojica CM,
    2. Gunn R,
    3. Pham R,
    4. et al
    . An observational study of workflows to support fecal testing for colorectal cancer screening in primary care practices serving Medicaid enrollees. BMC Cancer 2022;22:106.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.↵
    1. Richman L,
    2. Pearson J,
    3. Beasley C,
    4. Stanifer J
    . Addressing health inequalities in diverse, rural communities: An unmet need. SSM Popul Health 2019;7:100398.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Richesson RL,
    2. Staes CJ,
    3. Douthit BJ,
    4. et al
    . Measuring implementation feasibility of clinical decision support alerts for clinical practice recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2020;27:514–21.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Richardson JE,
    2. Ash JS
    . A clinical decision support needs assessment of community-based physicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18 Suppl 1:i28–35.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Petrik AF,
    2. Green BB,
    3. Vollmer WM,
    4. et al
    . The validation of electronic health records in accurately identifying patients eligible for colorectal cancer screening in safety net clinics. Fam Pract 2016;33:639–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Rudrapatna VA,
    2. Glicksberg BS,
    3. Avila P,
    4. Harding-Theobald E,
    5. Wang C,
    6. Butte AJ
    . Accuracy of medical billing data against the electronic health record in the measurement of colorectal cancer screening rates. BMJ Open Qual 2020;9:e000856.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Conderino S,
    2. Bendik S,
    3. Richards TB,
    4. et al
    . The use of electronic health records to inform cancer surveillance efforts: a scoping review and test of indicators for public health surveillance of cancer prevention and control. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2022;22:91.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    ClinicalTrials.gov. Screening more patients for colorectal cancer through adapting and refining targeted evidence-based interventions in rural settings, SMARTER CRC. 2022.
  22. 22.↵
    1. Coronado GL,
    2. Ramsey K,
    3. Coury J,
    4. et al
    . Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Implementation Science Communication (submitted) 2022.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Gunn R,
    3. Pham R,
    4. et al
    . Key collaborative factors when Medicaid accountable care organizations work with primary care clinics to improve colorectal cancer screening: relationships, data, and quality improvement infrastructure. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E107–E107.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. O'Leary MC,
    2. Lich KH,
    3. Gu Y,
    4. et al
    . Colorectal cancer screening in newly insured Medicaid members: a review of concurrent federal and state policies. BMC health Serv Res 2019;19:298.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. 25.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Green BB,
    3. West II,
    4. et al
    . Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study. Cancer 2020;126:540–548.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Coury JK,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Green BB,
    4. et al
    . Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Transl Behav Med 2020;10:68–77.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Johnson ES,
    3. Leo MC,
    4. et al
    . Patient randomized trial of a targeted navigation program to improve rates of follow-up colonoscopy in community health centers. Contemp Clin Trials 2020;89:105920.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Coury J,
    2. Ramsey K,
    3. Gunn R,
    4. Judkins J,
    5. Davis M
    . Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care. BMC health Serv Res 2022;22:204.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Damschroder LJ,
    2. Aron DC,
    3. Keith RE,
    4. Kirsh SR,
    5. Alexander JA,
    6. Lowery JC
    . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Thielke R,
    4. Payne J,
    5. Gonzalez N,
    6. Conde JG
    . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009;42:377–381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Minor BL
    , REDCap Consortiumet al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019;95:103208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
  33. 33.↵
  34. 34.↵
    Oregon Primary Care Association (OPCA). 2022. Available at: https://www.orpca.org/chc/find-a-chc.
  35. 35.↵
    Oregon Office of Rural Health. 2022. Available at: https://www.ohsu.edu/oregon-office-of-rural-health. Accessed 2022.
  36. 36.↵
    Oregon Office of Rural Health. Oregon Office of Rural Health geographic definitions. 2021. Available at: https://www.ohsu.edu/oregon-office-of-rural-health/about-rural-and-frontier-data.
  37. 37.
    USDA Economic Research Service. Rural-urban commuting area codes. 2020. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes.aspx.
  38. 38.↵
    University of Washington WRHRC. Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes 2021. Available at: https://familymedicine.uw.edu/rhrc/ruca. Accessed 2022.
  39. 39.↵
    1. Cohen DJ,
    2. Dorr DA,
    3. Knierim K,
    4. et al
    . Primary care practices' abilities and challenges in using electronic health record data for quality improvement. Health Aff (Millwood) 2018;37:635–643.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. 40.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Petrik A,
    4. Rivelli J,
    5. Taplin S,
    6. Green BB
    . Implementation successes and challenges in participating in a pragmatic study to improve colon cancer screening: perspectives of health center leaders. Transl Behav Med 2017;7:557–566.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. 41.↵
    1. Coury J,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Rivelli JS,
    4. et al
    . Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics. BMC health Serv Res 2017;17:411.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Weiner BJ,
    2. Rohweder CL,
    3. Scott JE,
    4. et al
    . Using practice facilitation to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening in community health centers, North Carolina. Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14:E66.
    OpenUrl
  43. 43.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Petrik AF,
    3. Spofford M,
    4. Talbot J,
    5. Do HH,
    6. Taylor VM
    . Clinical perspectives on colorectal cancer screening at Latino-serving federally qualified health centers. Health Educ Behav 2015;42:26–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Cifuentes M,
    2. Davis M,
    3. Fernald D,
    4. Gunn R,
    5. Dickinson P,
    6. Cohen DJ
    . Electronic health record challenges, workarounds, and solutions observed in practices integrating behavioral health and primary care. J Am Board Fam Med 2015;28 Suppl 1:S63–72.
    OpenUrl
  45. 45.↵
    1. Liaw WR,
    2. Jetty A,
    3. Petterson SM,
    4. Peterson LE,
    5. Bazemore AW
    . Solo and small practices: a vital, diverse part of primary care. Ann Fam Med 2016;14:8–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. 46.↵
    1. Green LA,
    2. Fryer GE Jr..,
    3. Yawn BP,
    4. Lanier D,
    5. Dovey SM
    . The ecology of medical care revisited. N Engl J Med 2001;344:2021–2025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Gliklich RE,
    2. Leavy MB,
    3. NA D
    1. Ehrenstein V,
    2. Kharrazi H,
    3. Lehmann H,
    4. Taylor C
    Chapter 4, Obtaining data from electronic health records. In Gliklich RE, Leavy MB, NA D, eds. Tools and Technologies for Registry Interoperability, Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide. 3rd ed. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019.
  48. 48.↵
    1. Fernald DH,
    2. Dickinson LM,
    3. Froshaug DB,
    4. et al
    . Improving multiple health risk behaviors in primary care: lessons from the Prescription for Health Common Measures, Better Outcomes (COMBO) study. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:701–711.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. 49.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Gunn R,
    3. Kenzie E,
    4. et al
    . Integration of improvement and implementation science in practice-based research networks: a longitudinal, comparative case study. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:1503–1513.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.↵
    1. Hatch B,
    2. Kenzie E,
    3. Barnes C,
    4. et al
    . Impact of Oregon's COVID-19 vaccine mandate on primary care practice staffing: results of an Oregon rural practice-based research network survey. In Prep.
  51. 51.↵
    1. Williams JP
    . President’s Cancer Panel Report: closing gaps in cancer screening for all Americans. 2022.
  52. 52.↵
    1. Huffstetler AN,
    2. Epling J,
    3. Krist AH
    . The need for electronic health records to support delivery of behavioral health preventive services. Jama 2022;328:707.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Probst J,
    2. Eberth JM,
    3. Crouch E
    . Structural urbanism contributes to poorer health outcomes for rural America. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019;38:1976–1984.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Petrik AF,
    2. Green B,
    3. Schneider J,
    4. et al
    . Factors influencing implementation of a colorectal cancer screening improvement program in community health centers: an applied use of configurational comparative methods. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35:815–822.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  55. 55.↵
    1. Nilsen P,
    2. Birken S
    1. Cragun D
    . Configurational comparative methods. In Nilsen P, Birken S, eds. Handbook on implementation science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020.
  56. 56.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Petrik AF,
    4. et al
    . Clinic factors associated with mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion: the difference-making role of support staff. Ann Fam Med 2022;20:123–129.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords