ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Firefighters are at increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), yet rates of CRC screening are low among this occupational group. This study examines perceived risks, barriers, and facilitators to CRC screening. METHODS: Three semistructured focus group discussions were conducted by investigators in Tucson, AZ. Thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes in the data. RESULTS: Three groups of firefighters (8 male (57%); 6 female (43%) mean age 50.4 ( SD = 12.2) years) voluntarily participated in the CRC discussions. Four major themes were examined: (1) perceptions of risk for CRC, (2) barriers to cancer screening, (3) facilitators to getting cancer screening, and (4) misinformation about CRC and screening. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate unique perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs among firefighters. Results from this study will inform the adaptation of a tailored CRC screening intervention for firefighters.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms , Early Detection of Cancer , Firefighters , Focus Groups , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Qualitative Research , Humans , Firefighters/psychology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Adult , Health Services Accessibility , AgedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: American Indians (AI) experience major colorectal cancer (CRC) screening disparities with commensurate inequity in CRC mortality and other outcomes. The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and early results of adapting a previously successful intervention for the AI community. METHODS: The educational content and delivery strategy of the parent intervention were adapted for AIs guided by an adaptation framework and cultural consultations with the community and clinicians. As part of the environmental scanning, we identified the need to substantively revise our data entry, collection, and tracking system and develop a REDCap database for this purpose. In this study, we staggered the implementation of the intervention in each facility to inform the process from one clinic to the next, and assess both the clinical outcomes of the tailored intervention and the implementation processes across two clinic settings, Facilities A and B. RESULTS: The REDCap database is an indispensable asset, and without it we would not have been able to obtain reliable aggregate screening data while improvements to facility electronic health records are in progress. Approximately 8% (n = 678) of screening-eligible patients have been exposed to the navigator intervention. Of those exposed to the navigator intervention, 37% completed screening. CONCLUSIONS: With the small numbers of patients exposed so far to the intervention, it would be premature to draw any broad conclusions yet about intervention effects. However, early screening completion rates are substantial advances on existing rates, and we have demonstrated that a tailored navigator intervention for facilitating CRC screening was readily adapted with provider and community input for application to AIs. A REDCap database for tracking of CRC screening by navigators using tablets or laptops on- or offline is easy to use and allows for generation of aggregate, anonymized screening data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: There was no health intervention meeting the criteria of a clinical trial. The University of Arizona Institutional Review Board granted exemption from obtaining informed consent from patients undergoing CRC screening after administration of the tailored navigation intervention as usual care.
