Epidemiology of Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Setting

IF 2.8
AJPM focus Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-08 DOI:10.1016/j.focus.2025.100403
Ena Mahapatra MD, MS, Romina Kee MD, MPH, Kyungran Shim MD, Cathy Rowell RN, William E. Trick MD, David Goldberg MD
{"title":"Epidemiology of Colon Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Setting","authors":"Ena Mahapatra MD, MS,&nbsp;Romina Kee MD, MPH,&nbsp;Kyungran Shim MD,&nbsp;Cathy Rowell RN,&nbsp;William E. Trick MD,&nbsp;David Goldberg MD","doi":"10.1016/j.focus.2025.100403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>This study was aimed to describe the epidemiology of colon cancer screening in an underserved population. This is a cohort study, conducted in a primary care clinic in a safety-net public hospital.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Patients aged 49–78 years were categorized by initial screening status and followed over 28 months. Status was categorized into the following 3 groups with 8 subgroups: screening eligible (up to date or not up to date), non-screening eligible (Personal history of colon cancer, surveillance for colon cancer, work-up in progress, poor health status, and indeterminate), and refusal. Patient egress was defined as no primary care visit for 12 months or &lt;2 primary care visits separated by 60 days over 24 months.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1,074 patients reviewed, 856 (80%) were screening eligible, 177 (16%) were non-screening eligible, and 41 (4%) refused screening. Over 28 months, most patients retained in the practice did not change category (<em>n</em>=949; 88%). Of 125 patients who changed, most (<em>n</em>=101) went from screening eligible to non-screening eligible, most commonly to surveillance and work-up in progress subgroups. Egress was common; nearly half of patients (47%) were not evaluated owing to egress.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Maintaining a colon cancer registry was complex owing to the dynamic nature of screening status and unstable primary care attendance. Regional integration of electronic health records could substantially reduce manual effort.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72142,"journal":{"name":"AJPM focus","volume":"4 5","pages":"Article 100403"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJPM focus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773065425000914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

This study was aimed to describe the epidemiology of colon cancer screening in an underserved population. This is a cohort study, conducted in a primary care clinic in a safety-net public hospital.

Methods

Patients aged 49–78 years were categorized by initial screening status and followed over 28 months. Status was categorized into the following 3 groups with 8 subgroups: screening eligible (up to date or not up to date), non-screening eligible (Personal history of colon cancer, surveillance for colon cancer, work-up in progress, poor health status, and indeterminate), and refusal. Patient egress was defined as no primary care visit for 12 months or <2 primary care visits separated by 60 days over 24 months.

Results

Of 1,074 patients reviewed, 856 (80%) were screening eligible, 177 (16%) were non-screening eligible, and 41 (4%) refused screening. Over 28 months, most patients retained in the practice did not change category (n=949; 88%). Of 125 patients who changed, most (n=101) went from screening eligible to non-screening eligible, most commonly to surveillance and work-up in progress subgroups. Egress was common; nearly half of patients (47%) were not evaluated owing to egress.

Conclusions

Maintaining a colon cancer registry was complex owing to the dynamic nature of screening status and unstable primary care attendance. Regional integration of electronic health records could substantially reduce manual effort.
安全网环境下结肠癌筛查的流行病学研究
本研究旨在描述服务不足人群中结肠癌筛查的流行病学。这是一项队列研究,在一家安全网公立医院的初级保健诊所进行。方法将49 ~ 78岁的患者按初始筛查状态进行分类,随访28个月。状态分为以下3组,共8个亚组:符合筛查条件(最新或不最新)、不符合筛查条件(个人结肠癌病史、结肠癌监测、正在进行的检查、健康状况不佳和不确定)和拒绝。患者离开的定义为12个月内未进行初级保健访问或24个月内间隔60天进行两次初级保健访问。结果在1074例患者中,856例(80%)符合筛查条件,177例(16%)不符合筛查条件,41例(4%)拒绝筛查。超过28个月,大多数患者在实践中没有改变类别(n=949; 88%)。在125名改变的患者中,大多数(n=101)从符合筛查条件变为不符合筛查条件,最常见的是在进展亚组中进行监测和随访。出口是常见的;近一半的患者(47%)因出院而未接受评估。结论:由于筛查状态的动态性和初级保健出勤率的不稳定性,维持结肠癌登记是复杂的。电子健康记录的区域一体化可以大大减少人工工作。
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
AJPM focus
AJPM focus Health, Public Health and Health Policy
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书