2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Distance and Transportation Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Community

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Rural residents in underserved areas face many barriers to health services, including colonoscopies for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but rural healthcare providers may assist patients navigating these challenges due to familiarity with local contexts. In 2017 to 2018, we interviewed clinical practitioners and staff (n = 40) at 13 primary care and gastroenterology locations across rural Southern Illinois. We used a semi-structured interview guide that addressed system, provider, and patient levels including domains related to barriers, facilitators, and needs for intervention. This article focuses on 3 main elements related to distance and transportation that emerged from inductive coding. First, providers described long distance travel for care as normalized but not necessarily preferable. Second, they identified and described distance-related challenges specific to CRC screening, and third, providers discussed strategies, mostly related to transportation, they use to navigate those challenges. Finally, they suggested a variety of broader solutions to reduce distance and transportation barriers to screening. Overall, distance to care remains a challenge to increasing CRC screening and contributes to disparities in rural communities. To increase early detection and reduce rural cancer disparities, efforts to increase screening and follow-up must address ways to help patients and providers navigate this distance within their local communities and contexts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Traveling towards disease: transportation barriers to health care access.

          Transportation barriers are often cited as barriers to healthcare access. Transportation barriers lead to rescheduled or missed appointments, delayed care, and missed or delayed medication use. These consequences may lead to poorer management of chronic illness and thus poorer health outcomes. However, the significance of these barriers is uncertain based on existing literature due to wide variability in both study populations and transportation barrier measures. The authors sought to synthesize the literature on the prevalence of transportation barriers to health care access. A systematic literature search of peer-reviewed studies on transportation barriers to healthcare access was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) study addressed access barriers for ongoing primary care or chronic disease care; (2) study included assessment of transportation barriers; and (3) study was completed in the United States. In total, 61 studies were reviewed. Overall, the evidence supports that transportation barriers are an important barrier to healthcare access, particularly for those with lower incomes or the under/uninsured. Additional research needs to (1) clarify which aspects of transportation limit health care access (2) measure the impact of transportation barriers on clinically meaningful outcomes and (3) measure the impact of transportation barrier interventions and transportation policy changes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA

            To review research published before and after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010) examining barriers in seeking or accessing health care in rural populations in the USA.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

              In 2002, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended colorectal cancer screening for adults 50 years of age or older but concluded that evidence was insufficient to prioritize among screening tests or evaluate newer tests, such as computed tomographic (CT) colonography. To review evidence related to knowledge gaps identified by the 2002 recommendation and to consider community performance of screening endoscopy, including harms. MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, expert suggestions, and bibliographic reviews. Eligible studies reported performance of colorectal cancer screening tests or health outcomes in average-risk populations and were at least of fair quality according to design-specific USPSTF criteria, as determined by 2 reviewers. Two reviewers verified extracted data. Four fecal immunochemical tests have superior sensitivity (range, 61% to 91%), and some have similar specificity (97% to 98%), to the Hemoccult II fecal occult blood test (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California). Tradeoffs between superior sensitivity and reduced specificity occur with high-sensitivity guaiac tests and fecal DNA, with other important uncertainties for fecal DNA. In settings with sufficient quality control, CT colonography is as sensitive as colonoscopy for large adenomas and colorectal cancer. Uncertainties remain for smaller polyps and frequency of colonoscopy referral. We did not find good estimates of community endoscopy accuracy; serious harms occur in 2.8 per 1000 screening colonoscopies and are 10-fold less common with flexible sigmoidoscopy. The accuracy and harms of screening tests were reviewed after only a single application. Fecal tests with better sensitivity and similar specificity are reasonable substitutes for traditional fecal occult blood testing, although modeling may be needed to determine all tradeoffs. Computed tomographic colonography seems as likely as colonoscopy to detect lesions 10 mm or greater but may be less sensitive for smaller adenomas. Potential radiation-related harms, the effect of extracolonic findings, and the accuracy of test performance of CT colonography in community settings remain uncertain. Emphasis on quality standards is important for implementing any operator-dependent colorectal cancer screening test.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Prim Care Community Health
                J Prim Care Community Health
                JPC
                spjpc
                Journal of Primary Care & Community Health
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2150-1319
                2150-1327
                3 January 2023
                Jan-Dec 2023
                : 14
                : 21501319221147126
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
                [2 ]Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
                [3 ]Northwestern University, IL, USA
                [4 ]Southern Illinois Healthcare, IL, USA
                Author notes
                [*]Aimee S. James, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Box 8100, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA. Email: jamesai@ 123456wustl.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8894-9816
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4900-3133
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5909-7167
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1411-9307
                Article
                10.1177_21501319221147126
                10.1177/21501319221147126
                9829879
                36594346
                49f8d33b-fa41-4c2f-a921-867080087daf
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 15 June 2022
                : 30 November 2022
                : 2 December 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: P30AG059988
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: R01CA233848
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: T32CA190194
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100000002;
                Award ID: U01CA209861
                Funded by: Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, ;
                Award ID: UL1TR001422
                Funded by: Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/100002295;
                Award ID: RHA2020-01
                Categories
                Pilot Study
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2023
                ts1

                rural healthcare,colon cancer,cancer screening,implementation

                Comments

                Comment on this article