Search

Background From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. Methods We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. Results Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs—structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate—were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. Implications Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

We applied a three-step process, abstracting and analyzing program budgets to examine how Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) awardees are structuring their programs and to assess the fidelity of program design to the CRCCP public health model. We reviewed 23 state, one tribal organization, and six university awardee budgets. We assessed resource allocations, staffing structures, and contracted partners and their activities. Awardees allocated 83% of all funds to contracts and personnel. Program managers were the most budgeted personnel type across three measures: number of people, full-time equivalency, and personnel costs. Awardees not only contracted with health care systems and clinics (39% of all contracts) but also contracted other partner types. Contractors were mainly funded to implement evidence-based interventions (25%) and conduct evaluation (24%). Program design varied among awardees in the number of staff (0–22), number of full-time equivalencies (0–5.4), and the number of contracts (1–11) budgeted. State awardees budgeted more resources to contracts, compared with university awardees (57% vs. 31%), while universities budgeted more for total personnel costs (41% vs. 30%). We learned that awardees designed their programs with fidelity to the CRCCP model. Although implementation approaches varied, overall results suggest implementation requires a combination of internal capacities and contracted partners. Budgets provide opportunities to use already existing program data to evaluate program design, partnerships, and planned activities.

Introduction The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening rates among people aged 50–75 years in areas where rates are lower than state or national levels. The aim of this study is to better understand the effectiveness of specific Colorectal Cancer Control Program components. Methods The study population included clinics enrolled in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program during Years 1 and 2. Clinic data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually from 2015 to 2017 for program evaluation were used. The outcome variable was screening rate change through Program Year 2, and predictor variables were a new implementation or enhancement of evidence-based interventions and other program components. The analysis, conducted in 2020, used ordinary least square and generalized estimating equations regressions and first difference models to estimate the associations of independent variables with the outcome. Results Of the total 336 clinics, 50%–70% newly implemented or enhanced different evidence-based interventions. Among these, client reminders were most highly associated with the increase in screening rates (8.0 percentage points). Provider reminder was not significantly associated with any change in screening rates. Among all program components, having a colorectal cancer screening champion was most highly (8.4 percentage points) associated with screening rate change. Results from different models were slightly different but in agreement. Conclusions Client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and colorectal cancer screening champions were associated with increased clinic-level colorectal cancer screening rates. Universal implementation of these strategies can substantially increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to significant declines in cancer screening, including among women served by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). This study examined the spatial association between state-based COVID-19 test percent positivity and proportional change in NBCCEDP screening volume.Using the COVID-19 Diagnostic Laboratory Testing dataset, we calculated state-based monthly COVID-19 test percent positivity from July through December 2020 and categorized rates into low, medium, and high groups. We used data from 48 NBCCEDP state awardees to calculate the state-based monthly proportional change in screening volume and compared data for July-December 2020 with the previous 5-year average for those months. We categorized changes in screening volume into large decrease, medium decrease, and minimal change and created maps of the associations between variable subgroups by using bivariate mapping in QGIS.Bivariate relationships between COVID-19 test percent positivity and proportional change in cancer screening volume varied over time and geography. In 5 of 6 months, 4 states had high COVID-19 test percent positivity and minimal change in breast or cervical cancer screening volume; 2 states had high COVID-19 test percent positivity and minimal change in breast and cervical cancer screening volume.Some states maintained pre-COVID-19 screening volumes despite high COVID-19 test percent positivity. Follow-up research will be conducted to determine how these states differ from those with consistent decreases in screening volume and identify factors that may have contributed to differences. This information could be useful for planning to maximize NBCCEDP awardees' ability to maintain screening volume during future public health emergencies.

Purpose and objectivesColorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018.Intervention approachThe 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers).Evaluation methodsClinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs.ResultsIn our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study.Implications for public healthClinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions.

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Background The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funds the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in primary care clinics by implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This study examined differences in clinic characteristics and implementation efforts among clinics with differential changes in screening rates over time. Methods CRCCP clinic data collected by the CDC were used. The outcome was the clinic status (highest quartile [Q4] vs lowest quartile [Q1]), which was based on the absolute screening rate change between the first and second program years. Five clinic characteristic variables and 12 clinic-level CRCCP variables (eg, EBIs) were assessed in bivariable analyses, and logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of the outcome. Results Each group included 78 clinics (N = 156). Clinics with a Q4 status saw a 14.9 percentage point increase in the screening rate, whereas clinics with a Q1 status experienced a 9.1 percentage point decline. Q4s were more likely than Q1s to have a CRC champion, implement 4 EBIs versus fewer EBIs, implement at least 1 new EBI, and increase the number of implemented EBIs. The adjusted odds of Q4 status were 5.3 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-14.9) if a clinic implemented an additional EBI. The adjusted odds of Q4 status increased to 7.1 (95% CI, 2.2-23.1) if a clinic implemented 2 to 4 additional EBIs. Conclusions Implementing new EBIs or enhancing existing ones improves CRC screening rates. Additionally, clinics with lower screening rates had greater rate increases and may have benefited more from the CRCCP.

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and cost of patient incentives, together with patient navigation and patient reminders, to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates and colorectal cancer screening uptake in one federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Appalachia. This FQHC is a designated homeless clinic, as 79.7% of its patient population are homeless. We collected process, outcome, and cost data from the FQHC for two time periods: usual care (September 2016–August 2017) and implementation (September 2017–September 2018). We reported the FIT kit return rate, the increase in return rate, and the additional number of individual screens. We also calculated the incremental cost per additional screen. The patient incentive program, with patient navigation and patient reminders, increased the number of FIT kits returned from the usual care period to the implementation period. The return rate increased by 25.9 percentage points (from 21.7% to 47.6%) with an additional 91 people screened at an incremental cost of $134.61 per screen. A patient incentive program, together with the assistance of patient navigators and supplemented with patient reminders, can help improve CRC screening uptake among vulnerable and homeless populations.

Background In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health systems and primary care clinics to increase CRC screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore factors that support an integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions 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, 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 staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a Kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, and then implemented a stepwise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. Results Programs reported that they support clinic partners’ integrated implementation by providing coordinated application processes and braided funding streams, and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient implementation of evidence-based interventions and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinics in implementing evidence-based interventions and supporting activities that promote both CRC screening and other chronic disease screening and management. Discussion The selected CRCCP programs and their partners implement activities to support the integration of evidence-based interventions and supporting activities with other clinic efforts. These integrated efforts support increased efficiency of clinic workflow, improved coordination of patient care, increased uptake of screening and improved patient outcomes. Conclusions The findings provide insights into how public health programs can support primary care clinics in integrating interventions and activities into existing workflows to support efficient, coordinated delivery of quality patient-centered care.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the most widely used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test in the United States. Through the detection and removal of potentially precancerous polyps, it can prevent CRC. However, CRC screening remains low among adults who are recommended for screening. The New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program implemented a patient navigation (PN) intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income patients in health centers in New Hampshire. In the current study, the authors examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed using Markov state transitions to calculate the costs and effectiveness associated with PN. Costs were calculated for the implementation of PN in a statewide public health program and in endoscopy centers. The main study outcome was colonoscopy screening completion. The main decision variable was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the PN intervention compared with usual care. RESULTS: The average cost per screening with PN was $1089 (95% confidence interval, $1075-$1103) compared with $894 with usual care (95% confidence interval, $886-$908). Among patients who were navigated, approximately 96.2% completed colonoscopy screening compared with 69.3% of those receiving usual care (odds ratio, 11.2; P

Background The objectives of the current study were to assess changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake and the cost-effectiveness of implementing multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs). EBIs were implemented at 2 federally qualified health centers that participated in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Clinic Quality Improvement for Population Health initiative. Methods Interventions included patient and provider reminder systems (health system 1), provider assessment and feedback (health systems 1 and 2), and numerous support activities (health systems 1 and 2). The authors evaluated health system 1 from July 2013 to June 2015 and health system 2 from July 2014 to June 2017. Evaluation measures included annual CRC screening uptake, EBIs implemented, funds received and expended by each health system to implement EBIs, and intervention costs to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and health systems. Results CRC screening uptake increased by 18 percentage points in health system 1 and 10 percentage points in health system 2. The improvements in CRC screening uptake, not including the cost of the screening tests, were obtained at an added cost ranging from $24 to $29 per person screened. Conclusions In both health systems, the multicomponent interventions implemented likely resulted in improvements in CRC screening. The results suggest that significant increases in CRC screening uptake can be achieved in federally qualified health centers when appropriate technical support and health system commitment are present. The cost estimates of the multicomponent interventions suggest that these interventions and support activities can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

Background Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. Methods The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. Results Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. Conclusions Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Women from racial and ethnic minority groups face a disproportionate burden of cervical and breast cancers in the United States. The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic might exacerbate these disparities as supply and demand for screening services are reduced. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides cancer screening services to women with low income and inadequate health insurance. We examined COVID-19's impact on NBCCEDP screening services during January-June 2020. We found the total number of NBCCEDP-funded breast and cervical cancer screening tests declined by 87% and 84%, respectively, during April 2020 compared with the previous 5-year averages for that month. The extent of declines varied by geography, race/ethnicity, and rurality. In April 2020, screening test volume declined most severely in Health and Human Services Region 2 - New York (96% for breast, 95% for cervical cancer screening) compared to the previous 5-year averages. The greatest declines were among American Indian/Alaskan Native women for breast cancer screening (98%) and Asian Pacific Islander women for cervical cancer screening (92%). Test volume began to recover in May and, by June 2020, NBCCEDP breast and cervical cancer screening test volume was 39% and 40% below the 5-year average for that month, respectively. However, breast cancer screening remained over 50% below the 5-year average among women in rural areas. NBCCEDP programs reported assisting health care providers resume screening.

Introduction: In the United States, disparities in cancer screening, morbidity, and mortality are well documented, and often are related to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic indicators including income, education, and healthcare access. Public health approaches that address social determinants of health have the greatest potential public health benefit, and can positively impact health disparities. As public health interventions, community health workers (CHWs), and patient navigators (PNs) work to address disparities and improve cancer outcomes through education, connecting patients to and navigating them through the healthcare system, supporting patient adherence to screening and diagnostic services, and providing social support and linkages to financial and community resources. Clinical settings, such as federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are mandated to provide care to medically underserved communities, and thus are also valuable in the effort to address health disparities. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies of cancer-related CHW/PN interventions in FQHCs, and to describe the components and characteristics of those interventions in order to guide future intervention development and evaluation. Method: We searched five databases for peer-reviewed CHW/PN intervention studies conducted in partnership with FQHCs with a focus on cancer, carried out in the United States, and published in English between January 1990 and December 2013. Results: We identified 24 articles, all reporting positive outcomes of CHW/PNs interventions in FQHCs. CHW/PN interventions most commonly promoted breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening and/or referral for diagnostic resolution. Studies were supported largely through federal funding. Partnerships with academic institutions and community-based organizations provided support and helped develop capacity among FQHC clinic leadership and community members. Discussion: Both the FQHC system and CHW/PNs were borne from the need to address persistent, complex health disparities among medically underserved communities. Our findings support the effectiveness of CHW/PN programs to improve completion and timeliness of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs, and highlight intervention components useful to design and sustainability.

BACKGROUND To investigate uniformly successful results from a statewide program of patient navigation (PN) for colonoscopy, this comparison study evaluated the effectiveness of the PN intervention by comparing outcomes for navigated versus non-navigated patients in one of the community health clinics included in the statewide program. Outcomes measured included screening completion, adequacy of bowel preparation, missed appointments and cancellations, communication of test results, and consistency of follow-up recommendations with clinical guidelines. METHODS The authors compared a subset of 131 patients who were navigated to a screening or surveillance colonoscopy with a similar subset of 75 non-navigated patients at one endoscopy clinic. The prevalence and prevalence odds ratios were computed to measure the association between PN and each study outcome measure. RESULTS Patients in the PN intervention group were 11.2 times more likely to complete colonoscopy than control patients (96.2% vs 69.3%; P

Author(s): Hannon, Peggy A; Maxwell, Annette E; Escoffery, Cam; Vu, Thuy; Kohn, Marlana J; Gressard, Lindsay; Dillon-Sumner, Laurel; Mason, Caitlin; DeGroff, Amy | Abstract: Purpose and objectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation.Intervention approachCDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates.Evaluation methodsWe surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation.ResultsMost grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity.Implications for public healthCRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.

OBJECTIVES: Patient navigation (PN) services have been shown to improve cancer screening in disparate populations. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementing PN services within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: We adapted a breast cancer simulation model to estimate a population cohort of women aged 40–64 years from the NBCCEDP through their lifetime. We incorporated their screening frequency and screening and diagnostic costs. RESULTS: Within the NBCCEDP, Program with PN (vs. No PN) resulted in a greater number of mammograms per woman (4.23 vs. 4.14), lower lifetime mortality from breast cancer (3.53% vs. 3.61%), and fewer missed diagnostic resolution per woman (0.017 vs. 0.025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a Program with PN was $32,531 per quality-adjusted life-years relative to Program with No PN. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating PN services within the NBCCEDP may be a cost-effective way of improving adherence to screening and diagnostic resolution for women who have abnormal results from screening mammography. Our study highlights the value of supportive services such as PN in improving the quality of care offered within the NBCCEDP.

Introduction The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. Methods By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. Results The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. Conclusion CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Introduction Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. Methods We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. Results Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. Conclusion Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Performance-based grants management is a strategy used by public agencies to improve performance and strengthen accountability by connecting annual award amounts to performance information. This study evaluates the impacts of a performance-based grants management process implemented by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to strengthen the effectiveness of its National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. The study uses panel data and interrupted time-series analysis over 10 years for 51 grantees. Results show partial and conditional effectiveness of the performance-based grants management process in strengthening performance. In particular, the implementation of the performance-based grants management system consistently improved the performance of those grantees for whom the targets were challenging. While prior research has found, in some cases, evidence of a positive impact of performance management practices in improving programs delivered directly by public organizations at the local level, this study examines the performance management–performance relationship in a more challenging context of a federal grants program delivered through a highly decentralized system.

Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community.The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions.Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50–75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a systematic screening and assessment process to identify promising practices implemented by grantees of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and its partners that were appropriate for rigorous evaluation.The systematic screening and assessment (SSA) process was conducted from September 2010 through March 2012 and included five steps: (1) nominations of promising practices; (2) a first rating by subject matter experts; (3) field-based evaluability assessments; (4) a second rating by experts; and (5) use of results. Nominations were sought in three program areas including health education and promotion, quality assurance and quality improvement, and case management/patient navigation.A total of 98 practices were nominated of which 54 % were eligible for the first review by the experts. Fifteen practices were selected for evaluability assessment with ten forwarded for the second review by the experts. Three practices were ultimately recommended for rigorous evaluation, and one evaluation was conducted. Most nominated practices were based on evidence-based strategies rather than representing new, innovative activities. Issues were identified through the process including inconsistent implementation and lack of implementation fidelity.While the SSA was successful in identifying several programs for evaluation, the process also revealed important shortcomings in program implementation. Training and technical assistance could help address these issues and support improved programming.

We assess annual costs of screening provision activities implemented by 23 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees and report differences in costs between colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based screening programs. We analysed annual cost data for the first three years of the CRCCP (July 2009-June 2011) for each screening provision activity and categorized them into clinical and non-clinical screening provision activities. The largest cost components for both colonoscopy and FOBT/FIT-based programs were screening and diagnostic services, program management, and data collection and tracking. During the first 3 years of the CRCCP, the average annual clinical cost for screening and diagnostic services per person served was $1150 for colonoscopy programs, compared to $304 for FIT/FOBT-based programs. Overall, FOBT/FIT-based programs appear to have slightly higher non-clinical costs per person served (average $1018; median $838) than colonoscopy programs (average $980; median $686). Colonoscopy-based CRCCP programs have higher clinical costs than FOBT/FIT-based programs during the 3-year study timeframe (translating into fewer people screened). Non-clinical costs for both approaches are similar and substantial. Future studies of the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening initiatives should consider both clinical and non-clinical costs.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is implemented through cooperative agreements with state health departments, US territories, and tribal health organizations (grantees). Grantees typically contract with clinicians and other providers to deliver breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services. As required by the CDC, grantees report biannually a subset of patient and clinical level program data known as the Minimum Data Elements. Rigorous processes are in place to ensure the completeness and quality of program data collection. In this article, the authors describe the NBCCEDP data-collection processes and data management system and discusses how data are used for 1) program monitoring and improvement, 2) evaluation and research, and 3) policy development and analysis. They also provide 2 examples of how grantees use data to improve their performance.

BACKGROUND: Little empirical evidence exists about the effectiveness of performance management systems in government. This study assessed the effectiveness of the performance management system of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and explored why it works. METHODS: Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess change in program performance after the implementation of a performance management system. In addition, qualitative case study data including observations, interviews, and document review were analyzed using inductive methods. RESULTS: Five of the 7 indicators tested had statistically significant increases in performance postimplementation. Case study results suggest that the system is characterized by high-quality data, measures viewed by grantees as meaningful and fair, and institutionalized data use. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors help to explain the system's effectiveness including characteristics of the NBCCEDP program (eg, service delivery program), qualities of the indicators (eg, process level), financial investment in the system, and a culture of data use. Cancer 2014;120(16 suppl):2566-74. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts. METHODS: Using data (2015–16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates. RESULTS: Clinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (< 1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs.

BACKGROUND In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models. METHODS A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle. RESULTS Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments. CONCLUSIONS Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2926–39. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services. METHODS: The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation. RESULTS: During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education. CONCLUSIONS: Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2914-25. V C 2013 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initiated the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to explore the feasibility of establishing a large-scale colorectal cancer screening program for underserved populations in the United States. The authors of the current report provide a detailed description of the total program costs (clinical and nonclinical) incurred during both the start-up and service delivery (screening) phases of the 4-year program. METHODS Tailored cost questionnaires were completed by staff at the 5 CRCSDP sites. Cost data were collected for clinical services and nonclinical programmatic activities (program management, data collection, and tracking, etc). In-kind contributions also were measured and were assigned monetary values. RESULTS Nearly $11.3 million was expended by the 5 sites over 4 years, and 71% was provided by the CDC. The proportion of funding spent on clinical service delivery and service delivery/patient support comprised the largest proportion of cost during the implementation phase (years 2-4). The per-person nonclinical cost comprised a substantial portion of total costs for all sites. The cost per person screened varied across the 5 sites and by screening method. Overall, economies of scale were observed, with lower costs resulting from larger numbers of individuals screened. CONCLUSIONS Programs incur substantial variable costs related to clinical services and semivariable costs related to nonclinical services. Therefore, programs that serve large populations are likely to achieve a lower cost per person. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2855–62. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations. METHODS The authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases. RESULTS Several themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident. CONCLUSIONS Colorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2870–83. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Background: The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 30 grantees to partner with health systems with the goal of increasing screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Evaluators applied CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation to design a national level outcome evaluation for measuring changes in CRC screening rates in partner health systems. Results: The resulting evaluation design involves the collection and reporting of clinic-level CRC screening rates supplemented by various tools to support the reporting of high quality, reliable data. Conclusions: The CRCCP evaluation represents a strong design to measure the primary outcome of interest, CRC screening rates, and public health practitioners can benefit from lessons learned about stakeholder involvement, data quality, and the role of evaluators in data dissemination.

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) provided funding to 29 grantees to increase colorectal cancer screening. We describe the screening promotion costs of CRCCP grantees to evaluate the extent to which the program model resulted in the use of funding to support interventions recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). We analyzed expenditures for screening promotion for the first three years of the CRCCP to assess cost per promotion strategy, and estimated the cost per person screened at the state level based on various projected increases in screening rates. All grantees engaged in small media activities and more than 90% used either client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, or patient navigation. Based on all expenditures, projected cost per eligible person screened for a 1%, 5%, and 10% increase in state-level screening proportions are $172, $34, and $17, respectively. CRCCP grantees expended the majority of their funding on Community Guide recommended screening promotion strategies but about a third was spent on other interventions. Based on this finding, future CRC programs should be provided with targeted education and information on evidence-based strategies, rather than broad based recommendations, to ensure that program funds are expended mainly on evidence-based interventions.

Background Oncology patient navigators help individuals overcome barriers to increase access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and timely treatment. This study, part of a randomized intervention trial investigating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colonoscopy completion, examined navigators' activities to ameliorate barriers to colonoscopy screening in a medically disadvantaged population. Methods This study was conducted from 2012 through 2014 at Boston Medical Center. We analyzed navigator service delivery and survey data collected on 420 participants who were navigated for colonoscopy screening after randomization to this intervention. Key variables under investigation included barriers to colonoscopy, activities navigators undertook to reduce barriers, time navigators spent on each activity and per contact, and patient satisfaction with navigation services. Descriptive analysis assessed how navigators spent their time and examined what aspects of patient navigation were most valued by patients. Results Navigators spent the most time assessing patient barriers/needs; facilitating appointment scheduling; reminding patients of appointments; educating patients about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening, and the colonoscopy preparation and procedures; and arranging transportation. Navigators spent an average of 44 minutes per patient. Patients valued the navigators, especially for providing emotional/peer support and explaining screening procedures and bowel preparation clearly. Conclusions Our findings help clarify the role of the navigator in colonoscopy screening within a medically disadvantaged community. These findings may help further refine the navigator role in cancer screening and treatment programs as facilities strive to effectively and efficiently integrate navigation into their services.