Search

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can improve health outcomes, but screening rates remain low across the US. Mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an effective way to increase CRC screening rates, but is still underutilized. In particular, cost of FIT has not been explored in relation to practice characteristics, FIT selection, and screening outreach approaches.Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey drawing from prior validated measures to 252 primary care practices to assess characteristics and context that could affect the implementation of direct mail fecal testing programs, including the cost, source of test, and types of FIT used. We analyzed the range of costs for the tests, and identified practice and test procurement factors. We examined the distributions of practice characteristics for FIT use and costs answers using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We used Pearson's chi-squared test of association and interpreted a low p-value (e.g. < 0.05) as evidence of association between a given practice characteristic and knowing the cost of FIT or fecal occult blood test (FOBT).Results: Among the 84 viable practice survey responses, more than 10 different types of FIT/FOBTs were in use; 76% of practices used one of the five most common FIT types. Only 40 practices (48%) provided information on FIT costs. Thirteen (32%) of these practices received the tests for free while 27 (68%) paid for their tests; median reported cost of a FIT was $3.04, with a range from $0.83 to $6.41 per test. Costs were not statistically significantly different by FIT type. However, practices who received FITs from manufacturer's vendors were more likely to know the cost (p = 0.0002) and, if known, report a higher cost (p = 0.0002).Conclusions: Our findings indicate that most practices without lab or health system supplied FITs are spending more to procure tests. Cost of FIT may impact the willingness of practices to distribute FITs through population outreach strategies, such as mailed FIT. Differences in the ability to obtain FIT tests in a cost-effective manner could have consequences for implementation of outreach programs that address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BeneFIT was a demonstration project that worked with a Medicaid/Medicare health plan to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. The goal was to reach age-eligible enrollees who were due for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prompt them to complete a FIT. One health insurance plan collaborated with six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon. Reach was defined as the percent of eligible individuals overdue for CRC screening who were mailed a FIT in 2016. We examined patient-level factors associated with reach, using multivariable log binomial regression and FIT completion rates at 6 months. The health plan identified 3386 age-eligible members overdue for CRC screening. Of these, 2615 (77.2%) were reached (mailed FIT kits) and 771 (22.8%) were not; 478 (14.1%) because they were not considered to be clinic patients and 290 (8.6%) because of mailing issues. Patient-level factors associated with not being reached were: being male, being Medicaid-insured (vs. Medicare), and having no primary care visits (vs. 4+ visits) in the last year. Among all enrollees identified as overdue for CRC screening, FIT completion rates at 6 months were 14.8% overall and 18.5% in the subgroup reached. In a mailed FIT program, a health insurance plan attempted to reach as many enrollees overdue for CRC screening as possible, however 22.8% were not mailed a FIT. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that the hardest to reach enrollees can participate in CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Promoting uptake of evidence-based innovations in healthcare systems requires attention to how innovations are adapted to enhance their fit with a given setting. Little is known about real-world variation in how programs are delivered over time and across multiple populations and contexts, and what motivates adaptations.Methods: As part of the BeneFIT study of mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to increase colorectal cancer screening, we interviewed 9 leaders from two participating Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans to examine adaptations to their health plan-initiated mailed FIT outreach programs in the second year of implementation. We applied an adaptation and modification model developed by Stirman and colleagues to document content and context modifications made to the two programs.Results: Both health plans made substantial changes to their programs in the second year; adaptations differed substantially across health plans. In Health Plan Oregon, adaptations generally targeted health centers and member populations, most content adaptations involved tailoring program components, and the program was expanded to four additional health centers. In contrast, Health Plan Washington's second-year content adaptations were primarily at the level of members, and generally involved adding program components. Moreover, Health Plan Washington undertook large-scale context adaptations to the setting where the program was led (local vs. national), the personnel who administered the program (vendor and staffing), and the population selected for outreach (limiting outreach to dual-eligible members).Conclusions: Both programs implemented a variety of adaptations that reflected the values and incentives of the broader health plan contexts. Financial incentives for screening allowed Health Plan Oregon to expand but led Health Plan Washington to offer more targeted outreach to a subset of eligible enrollees. The breadth of changes made by each health system reflects the necessity of evaluating programs in context and adjusting to specific challenges as they are identified. Further research is needed to understand the effects of these types of adaptations on program efficiency and enrollee and health system outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.Methods: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.Results: Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.Conclusion: Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]