scholarly journals Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 67-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence K.L. Tangka ◽  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Sonja Hoover ◽  
Janet Royalty ◽  
Kristy Joseph ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Cancer Control Program

scholarly journals Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Florence K.L. Tangka ◽  
Sonja Hoover ◽  
Maggie Cole-Beebe ◽  
Djenaba Joseph ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Cancer Control Program

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 877-883
Author(s):  
Florence K. L. Tangka ◽  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Sonja Hoover ◽  
Amy DeGroff ◽  
Djenaba Joseph ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Program Implementation ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Crc Screening ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Cancer Control Program

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

scholarly journals Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009–2014

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florence K. L. Tangka ◽  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Sonja Hoover ◽  
Maggie Cole-Beebe ◽  
Amy DeGroff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Cancer Control Program

scholarly journals Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 898-904
Author(s):  
Melissa Barajas ◽  
Florence K. L. Tangka ◽  
James Schultz ◽  
Kulin Tantod ◽  
Ying Marilyn Kempster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Health Centers ◽  
California Department ◽  
Screening Uptake

As an awardee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program, the California Department of Public Health partnered with Neighborhood Healthcare to implement evidence-based interventions and provider incentives (incentives offered to support staff, e.g., medical assistants, phlebotomists, front office staff, lab technicians) to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the provider incentive intervention implemented by Neighborhood Healthcare to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. We collected and analyzed process and cost data to assess fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates to the health centers and the number of completed FIT kits. We estimated the costs of the preexisting interventions and the new interventions. Analyses were conducted for two time periods: preimplementation and implementation. Most Neighborhood Healthcare health centers experienced an increase in the percentage of FIT kit returns (average of 3.6 percentage points) and individuals screened (an average increase of 111 FIT kits per month) from the baseline period through the implementation period. The cost of the incentive intervention for each additional screen was $66.79. In conclusion, the results indicate that incentive programs can have an overall positive impact on both the percentage of FIT kits returned and the number of individuals screened.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document