Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

This program uses a culturally tailored intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among minority racial and ethnic groups that have historically low screening rates. Through the program, a bi-lingual patient navigator works with non-English speaking patients aged 52-79 who are overdue for colorectal cancer screening. The patient navigator educates patients about colorectal cancer and screening methods, and discusses the patient's barriers to screening. The navigators help to schedule appointments, remind patients of appointments, translate preparation instructions, organize transportation to appointments, and accompany patients who do not have a family member available. Following screening, the navigator updates the patients' medical records with screening results. The program has navigators who speak Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Portuguese, Russian, Serbo-Croatian, and Somali.

Goal / Mission

The goal of this program is to decrease barriers and increase rates for colorectal cancer screening among low-income, non-English speaking patients.

Results / Accomplishments

In a randomized, controlled trial participants in the intervention were compared to a usual care control group. Over a 9-month period, intervention patients were significantly more likely to undergo colorectal cancer screening than control patients (27% vs. 12% for any screening, p < 0.001; 21% vs. 10% for colonoscopy, < 0.001). The higher screening rate resulted in the identification of 10.5 polyps per 100 patients in the intervention group, compared to 6.8 in the control group (p = 0.04).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Massachusetts General Hospital
Primary Contact
Sanja Percac-Lima
Chelsea HealthCare Center
151 Everett Ave.
Chelsea, MA 02150
(617) 889-8580
spercaclima@partners.org
Topics
Health / Cancer
Health / Prevention & Safety
Health / Health Care Access & Quality
Organization(s)
Massachusetts General Hospital
Source
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Date of publication
Feb 2009
Date of implementation
Jan 2007
Geographic Type
Urban
Location
Boston, MA
For more details
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC262898...
Target Audience
Racial/Ethnic Minorities

Related Promising Practices

  1. Direct Mailing of Fecal Occult Blood Tests to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening
  2. Colorectal Cancer Screening Intervention for Veterans
  3. Mailed Psychoeducational Intervention for Colorectal Cancer Screening
  4. Patient and Physician Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening
  5. Celebrity Colon Cancer Screening Promotional Campaign
  6. Colorectal Cancer Screening in Chinese Americans Project

More

Related Content for: Culturally Tailored Navigator Program for Colorectal Cancer Screening

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.