Welcome to CDC Stacks | Promotion and Provision of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees and Nongrantees, 2011–2012 - 25686 | Preventing Chronic Disease | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Promotion and Provision of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees and Nongrantees, 2011–2012
Filetype[PDF - 318.66 KB]


Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    25275807
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC4184085
  • Funding:
    U48DP001909/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
    U48DP001911/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
    U48DP001934/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
    U48DP001949/DP/NCCDPHP CDC HHS/United States
  • Document Type:
  • Description:
    Introduction

    Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).

    Methods

    We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.

    Results

    CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).

    Conclusion

    Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program’s potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.