Carolina Abuelo, Jeffrey M Ashburner, Steven J Atlas, Amy Knudsen, James Morrill, Patricia Corona, Derri Shtasel, Sanja Percac-Lima
{"title":"Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Navigation for Patients with Mental Illness and/or Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Carolina Abuelo, Jeffrey M Ashburner, Steven J Atlas, Amy Knudsen, James Morrill, Patricia Corona, Derri Shtasel, Sanja Percac-Lima","doi":"10.1080/15504263.2020.1802542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (<i>n</i> = 126) or usual care (<i>n</i> = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (<i>p</i> = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, <i>p</i> = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (<i>p</i> = .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population.</p><p><strong>Trials registration number: </strong>2016P001322.</p>","PeriodicalId":46571,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","volume":"16 4","pages":"438-446"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15504263.2020.1802542","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dual Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15504263.2020.1802542","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Abstract
Objective: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD.
Methods: A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (n = 126) or usual care (n = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups.
Results: Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (p = .05).
Conclusions: A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Dual Diagnosis is a quarterly, international publication that focuses on the full spectrum of complexities regarding dual diagnosis. The co-occurrence of mental health and substance use disorders, or “dual diagnosis,” is one of the quintessential issues in behavioral health. Why do such high rates of co-occurrence exist? What does it tell us about risk profiles? How do these linked disorders affect people, their families, and the communities in which they live? What are the natural paths to recovery? What specific treatments are most helpful and how can new ones be developed? How can we enhance the implementation of evidence-based practices at clinical, administrative, and policy levels? How can we help clients to learn active recovery skills and adopt needed supports, clinicians to master new interventions, programs to implement effective services, and communities to foster healthy adjustment? The Journal addresses each of these perplexing challenges.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
