Colorectal Cancer Screening in Free Clinics: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved Pub Date : 2024-01-01

Saarang R Deshpande, Lillian Wieland, Zhuoyang Wang, Suneel Kamath

{"title":"Colorectal Cancer Screening in Free Clinics: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Saarang R Deshpande, Lillian Wieland, Zhuoyang Wang, Suneel Kamath","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: There are significant inequities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and outcomes. Via literature review, we assessed CRC screening rates for the vulnerable populations served by free clinics.Methods: A systematic review was conducted for publications on CRC screening in free clinics. Outcomes included CRC screening characteristics, population demographics, and limitations. A methodological quality assessment was completed.Results: Out of 63 references, six studies were included, representing 8,844 participants. Black or Hispanic participants were the plurality in all but one study. All participants were uninsured. Median CRC screening rate was 48.4% (range 6.6-78.9%). Screening methods included colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical test. Clinics offering only one screening method had a mean screening rate of 7.2% while those with multiple methods had a screening rate of 65.4%.Conclusion: Access to multiple CRC screening modalities correlates with higher screening rates in free clinics. More work is needed to increase CRC screening in free clinics.","PeriodicalId":48101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved","volume":"35 2","pages":"425-438"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: There are significant inequities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and outcomes. Via literature review, we assessed CRC screening rates for the vulnerable populations served by free clinics.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted for publications on CRC screening in free clinics. Outcomes included CRC screening characteristics, population demographics, and limitations. A methodological quality assessment was completed.

Results: Out of 63 references, six studies were included, representing 8,844 participants. Black or Hispanic participants were the plurality in all but one study. All participants were uninsured. Median CRC screening rate was 48.4% (range 6.6-78.9%). Screening methods included colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and fecal immunochemical test. Clinics offering only one screening method had a mean screening rate of 7.2% while those with multiple methods had a screening rate of 65.4%.

Conclusion: Access to multiple CRC screening modalities correlates with higher screening rates in free clinics. More work is needed to increase CRC screening in free clinics.

本刊更多论文

免费诊所的结直肠癌筛查：系统回顾。

目的：在结肠直肠癌（CRC）筛查和结果方面存在严重的不公平现象。通过文献回顾，我们评估了免费诊所服务的弱势群体的 CRC 筛查率：方法：我们对免费诊所中有关 CRC 筛查的出版物进行了系统性回顾。结果包括 CRC 筛查特点、人群人口统计学和局限性。结果：在 63 篇参考文献中，有 6 篇研究涉及免费诊所的 CRC 筛查：在 63 篇参考文献中，共纳入了 6 项研究，代表了 8844 名参与者。除一项研究外，其他研究的参与者均为黑人或西班牙裔。所有参与者均无保险。CRC 筛查率中位数为 48.4%（范围为 6.6-78.9%）。筛查方法包括结肠镜检查、粪便隐血试验、柔性乙状结肠镜检查和粪便免疫化学试验。仅提供一种筛查方法的诊所的平均筛查率为 7.2%，而提供多种方法的诊所的筛查率为 65.4%：结论：在免费诊所接受多种 CRC 筛查方法可提高筛查率。要提高免费诊所的 CRC 筛查率，还需要做更多的工作。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved Multiple-

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

7.10%

发文量

154

期刊介绍： The journal has as its goal the dissemination of information on the health of, and health care for, low income and other medically underserved communities to health care practitioners, policy makers, and community leaders who are in a position to effect meaningful change. Issues dealt with include access to, quality of, and cost of health care.