This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery, including cancer screening practices. This study sought to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening relative to social vulnerability. Methods Using the Medicare Standard Analytic File, individuals 65 years old or older who were eligible for guideline-concordant CRC screening between 2019 and 2021 were identified. These data were merged with the Center for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) dataset. Changes in county-level monthly screening volumes relative to the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020) and easing of restrictions (March 2021) were assessed relative to SVI. Results Among 10,503,180 individuals continuously enrolled in Medicare with no prior diagnosis of CRC, 1,362,457 (12.97%) underwent CRC screening between 2019 and 2021. With the COVID-19 pandemic, CRC screening decreased markedly across the United States (median monthly screening: pre-pandemic [ n = 76,444] vs pandemic era [ n = 60,826]; median Δ n = 15,618; p < 0.001). The 1-year post-pandemic overall CRC screening utilization generally rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels (monthly median screening volumes: pandemic era [ n = 60,826] vs post-pandemic [ n = 74,170]; median Δ n = 13,344; p < 0.001). Individuals residing in counties with the highest SVI experienced a larger decline in CRC screening odds than individuals residing in low-SVI counties (reference, low SVI: pre-pandemic high SVI [OR, 0.85] vs pandemic high SVI [OR, 0.81] vs post-pandemic high SVI [OR, 0.85]; all p < 0.001). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a decrease in CRC screening volumes. Patients who resided in high social vulnerability areas experienced the greatest pandemic-related decline.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: