Search

Abstract Background The purpose of the Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) Program, a Cancer Moonshot℠ Initiative, is to support research to build the evidence base on multilevel interventions that increase rates of colorectal cancer screening, follow-up, and referral to care to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. The National Cancer Institute funded eight Research Projects to implement multilevel interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening among communities who traditionally have been medically underserved. To analyze the impact of ACCSIS across Research Projects, the consortium developed a set of common data elements. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process of developing the common data elements to facilitate analysis of ACCSIS data as well as support and inform implementation science research studies. Methods The ACCSIS Data, Design, and Analysis Work Group was tasked with designing common data elements through a review of existing data collection instruments, examination of data elements proposed by the ACCSIS Research Projects, and deliberations on the data required to compare across the Research Projects. ACCSIS Consortium members drafted, revised, and finalized a common data elements document consisting of variables to collect and surveys to administer to evaluate ACCSIS implementation activities and outcomes in a standardized manner across the Research Projects. Results The ACCSIS Consortium decided to collect the following categories of common data elements: characteristics across multiple levels of the multicomponent interventions, implementation climate, and determinants; interventions and strategies; implementation outcome constructs and definitions; colorectal cancer screening episodes (screening, diagnostic testing follow-up, cancer detection, and cancer treatment); and cost measures. To assess implementation climate, the consortium prioritized constructs from five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Conclusions The ACCSIS common data elements offer a set of harmonization data for future implementation efforts. The consortium is conducting a systematic assessment using both quantitative and qualitative approaches to assess data quality and approaches to improve and sustain data collection. Lessons learned from these ongoing activities will offer additional insights to tailor the ACCSIS common data elements and support efforts to increase colorectal cancer screening for populations experiencing disparities.

Abstract Background Three current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects. Methods The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders. Results In Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings. Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening. Conclusions The results from the case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.

Abstract Background Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs—the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program—to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science. Methods We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success. Conclusion Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Abstract Background In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. Methods Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake. Results We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners’ readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities. Discussion The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics’ readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care. Conclusions We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

BackgroundIn Georgia an estimated 32% of blacks and 28% of whites have high blood pressure. In 2004 the rate of death from stroke in Georgia was 12% higher than the national average, and blacks in the state have a 1.4 times greater rate of death from stroke than that of whites.ContextThe Georgia legislature funds the Stroke and Heart Attack Prevention Program (SHAPP) to provide treatment and medications for indigent Georgians. The median rate of blood pressure (BP) control among SHAPP enrollees is approximately 60%, compared with the national average of 35%.MethodsSHAPP was evaluated through interviews with key health care and administrative staff and through focus groups of patients in two clinics.ConsequencesOutcomes for patients were increased knowledge of their BP and improved compliance with taking medication and keeping clinic appointments.InterpretationSuccessful components of SHAPP include an easy enrollment process; affordable medication; use of evidence-based, documented protocols and patient tracking systems; routine follow-up of patients; and effective communication between staff and patients. Challenges and recommendations for improvement are identified.