Search

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative. Methods We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation. Results ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs. Conclusions Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer.Objective: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement.Design: Review of guidelines.Setting: United States.Patients: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines.Measurements: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type.Results: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type.Limitations: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines.Conclusion: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery.Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer screening is a complex process encompassing risk assessment, the initial screening examination, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of cancer precursors or early cancers. Metrics that enable comparisons across different screening targets are needed. We present population-based screening metrics for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers for nine sites participating in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium.Methods: We describe how selected metrics map to a trans-organ conceptual model of the screening process. For each cancer type, we calculated calendar year 2013 metrics for the screen-eligible target population (breast: ages 40-74 years; cervical: ages 21-64 years; colorectal: ages 50-75 years). Metrics for screening participation, timely diagnostic evaluation, and diagnosed cancers in the screened and total populations are presented for the total eligible population and stratified by age group and cancer type.Results: The overall screening-eligible populations in 2013 were 305 568 participants for breast, 3 160 128 for cervical, and 2 363 922 for colorectal cancer screening. Being up-to-date for testing was common for all three cancer types: breast (63.5%), cervical (84.6%), and colorectal (77.5%). The percentage of abnormal screens ranged from 10.7% for breast, 4.4% for cervical, and 4.5% for colorectal cancer screening. Abnormal breast screens were followed up diagnostically in almost all (96.8%) cases, and cervical and colorectal were similar (76.2% and 76.3%, respectively). Cancer rates per 1000 screens were 5.66, 0.17, and 1.46 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively.Conclusions: Comprehensive assessment of metrics by the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium enabled systematic identification of screening process steps in need of improvement. We encourage widespread use of common metrics to allow interventions to be tested across cancer types and health-care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]