ABSTRACT
Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively prevented via screening colonoscopy, yet adherence rates remain low among Latinos. Interventions targeting individual and cultural barriers to screening are needed. We developed an educational brochure to target these barriers faced by a diverse Latino population. The objective was to evaluate the responses of the target population to the culturally and theoretically informed brochure through community member focus groups. Facilitators conducted six focus groups, stratified by gender, language, and prior colonoscopy experience. Topics included: brochure content and layout, cancer knowledge, and CRC screening determinants. Focus groups documented community members' responses to the brochure's overall message and its informational and visual components. Changes to wording, visual aids, and content were suggested to make the brochure culturally more acceptable. Results indicated relevance of the theoretically and culturally guided approach to the development of the brochure leading to refinement of its content and design.
Subject(s)
Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Early Detection of Cancer/psychology , Focus Groups , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Hispanic or Latino/psychology , Pamphlets , Aged , Colonoscopy , Colorectal Neoplasms/ethnology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Culture , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Program EvaluationABSTRACT
Low-income minorities often face system-based and personal barriers to screening colonoscopy (SC). Culturally targeted patient navigation (CTPN) programs employing professional navigators (Pro-PNs) or community-based peer navigators (Peer-PNs) can help overcome barriers but are not widely implemented. In East Harlem, NY, USA, where approximately half the residents participate in SC, 315 African American patients referred for SC at a primary care clinic with a Direct Endoscopic Referral System were recruited between May 2008 and May 2010. After medical clearance, 240 were randomized to receive CTPN delivered by a Pro-PN (n = 106) or Peer-PN (n = 134). Successful navigation was measured by SC adherence rate, patient satisfaction and navigator trust. Study enrollment was 91.4% with no significant differences in SC adherence rates between Pro-PN (80.0%) and Peer-PN (71.3%) (P = 0.178). Participants in both groups reported high levels of satisfaction and trust. These findings suggest that CTPN Pro-PN and Peer-PN programs are effective in this urban primary care setting. We detail how we recruited and trained navigators, how CTPN was implemented and provide a preliminary answer to our questions of the study aims: can peer navigators be as effective as professionals and what is the potential impact of patient navigation on screening adherence?
Subject(s)
Colonoscopy/psychology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Cultural Competency , Patient Navigation/organization & administration , Referral and Consultation , Black or African American , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Humans , New York City/epidemiology , Patient Compliance , Patient Satisfaction , Peer Group , Poverty , Program Development , TrustABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Patient navigation (PN) is being used increasingly to help patients complete screening colonoscopy (SC) to prevent colorectal cancer. At their large, urban academic medical center with an open-access endoscopy system, the authors previously demonstrated that PN programs produced a colonoscopy completion rate of 78.5% in a cohort of 503 patients (predominantly African Americans and Latinos with public health insurance). Very little is known about the direct costs of implementing PN programs. The objective of the current study was to perform a detailed cost analysis of PN programs at the authors' institution from an institutional perspective. METHODS: In 2 randomized controlled trials, average-risk patients who were referred for SC by primary care providers were recruited for PN between May 2008 and May 2010. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 PN groups. The cost of PN and net income to the institution were determined in a cost analysis. RESULTS: Among 395 patients who completed colonoscopy, 53.4% underwent SC alone, 30.1% underwent colonoscopy with biopsy, and 16.5% underwent snare polypectomy. Accounting for the average contribution margins of each procedure type, the total revenue was $95,266.00. The total cost of PN was $14,027.30. Net income was $81,238.70. In a model sample of 1000 patients, net incomes for the institutional completion rate (approximately 80%), the historic PN program (approximately 65%), and the national average (approximately 50%) were compared. The current PN program generated additional net incomes of $35,035.50 and $44,956.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PN among minority patients with mostly public health insurance generated additional income to the institution, mainly because of increased colonoscopy completion rates.
