BackgroundData on the social determinants of health can help primary care practices target improvement efforts, yet relevant data are rarely available. Our family practice located in Toronto, Ontario routinely collects patient-level sociodemographic data via a pilot-tested survey developed by a multi-organizational steering committee. We sought to use these data to assess the relationship between the social determinants and colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening, and to describe the opportunities and challenges of using data on social determinants from a self-administered patient survey.MethodsPatients of the family practice eligible for at least one of the three cancer screening types, based on age and screening guidelines as of June 30, 2015 and who had answered at least one question on a socio-demographic survey were included in the study. We linked self-reported data from the sociodemographic survey conducted in the waiting room with patients’ electronic medical record data and cancer screening records. We created an individual-level income variable (low-income cut-off) that defined a poverty threshold and took household size into account. The sociodemographic characteristics of patients who were overdue for screening were compared to those who were up-to-date for screening for each cancer type using chi-squared tests.ResultsWe analysed data for 5766 patients for whom we had survey data. Survey participants had significantly higher screening rates (72.9, 78.7, 74.4% for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening respectively) than the 13, 036 patients for whom we did not have survey data (59.2, 65.3, 58.9% respectively). Foreign-born patients were significantly more likely to be up-to-date on colorectal screening than their Canadian-born peers but showed no significant differences in breast or cervical cancer screening. We found a significant association between the low-income cut-off variable and cancer screening; neighbourhood income quintile was not significantly associated with cancer screening. Housing status was also significantly associated with colorectal, cervical and breast cancer screening. There was a large amount of missing data for the low-income cut-off variable, approximately 25% across the three cohorts.ConclusionWhile we were able to show that neighbourhood income might under-estimate income-related disparities in screening, individual-level income was also the most challenging variable to collect. Future work in this area should target the income disparity in cancer screening and simultaneously explore how best to collect measures of poverty.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-017-0599-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Our Family Health Team is located in Toronto, Canada and provides care to over 35 000 patients. Like many practices in Canada, we took an opportunistic approach to cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. We wanted to shift to a proactive, population-based approach but were unable to systematically identify patients overdue for screening or calculate baseline screening rates. Our initiative had two goals: (1) to develop a method for systematically identifying patients eligible for screening and whether they were overdue and (2) to increase screening rates for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. Using external government data in combination with our practice's electronic medical record, we developed a process to identify patients eligible and overdue for cancer screening. After generating baseline data, we implemented an evidence-based, multifaceted intervention to improve cancer screening rates. We sent a personalized reminder letter to overdue patients, provided physicians with practice-level audit and feedback, and improved our electronic reminder function by updating charts with accurate data on the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT). Following our initial intervention, we sought to maintain and further improve our screening rates by experimenting with alternative recall methods and collecting patient feedback. Screening rates significantly improved for all three cancers. Between March 2014 and December 2016, the cervical cancer screening rate increased from 60% to 71% (p<0.05), the breast cancer screening rate increased from 56% to 65% (p<0.05), and the overall colorectal screening rate increased from 59% to 70% (p<0.05). The increase in colorectal screening rates was largely due to an increase in FOBT screening from 18% to 25%, while colonoscopy screening remained relatively unchanged, shifting from 45% to 46%. We also found that patients living in low income neighbourhoods were less likely to be screened. Following our intervention, this equity gap narrowed modestly for breast and colorectal cancer but did not change for cervical cancer screening. Our future improvement efforts will be focused on reducing the gap in screening between patients living in low-income and high-income neighbourhoods while maintaining overall gains.

Background: There is good evidence that cancer-specific patient outreach improves rates of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. However, it is unclear how primary care practices should implement integrated outreach for all 3 types of cancer screening. We aimed to understand whether integrated outreach using mailed letters or phone calls were more effective at increasing screening uptake in a primary care organization.Method: We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial comparing outreach by mailed letter or personalized phone call for patients overdue for cervical, breast, or colorectal cancer screening. The study was conducted at 6 clinics within an academic primary care organization in Toronto, Canada. Our primary outcome was an uptake of at least 1 screening test for which the patient was overdue. Our primary analysis was an intention-to-treat, unadjusted comparison of proportions, using a 2 test. We also compared costs per additional patient screened. All analyses were stratified by sex.Results: A total of 3733 females and 1537 males were randomized to receive 1 of the interventions. Among women, 33.0% allocated to receive a reminder letter and 41.2% allocated to receive a reminder phone call received at least 1 screening test for which they were due (absolute difference, 8.1%; 95% CI, 5.1%-11.2%, P < .001). Among men, 24.8% allocated to receive a reminder letter and 28.8% allocated to a reminder phone call received screening for colorectal cancer (absolute difference, 4.1%; 95% CI, ؊0.4% to 8.5%, P ‫؍‬ .073). For women and men, the letters cost approximately CaD $5.07 and CaD $7.16, respectively, for each completed screening test compared with CaD $8.71 and CaD $12.00 for the phone calls.Conclusions: Phone calls were more effective than mailed letters at increasing uptake for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening among women. However, phone calls were more expensive than letters. Primary care practices should consider integrating phone call reminders into their practice, possibly as part of a targeted or staged approach to outreach for cancer screening. (J Am Board Fam Med 2018;31:857-868.)