Search

Recent value-based payment reforms in the U.S. called for empirical data on how primary care practices of varying characteristics fund their integrated behavioral health services. To describe payment strategies used by U.S. primary care practices to fund behavioral health integration and compare strategies between practices with and without hospital affiliation.Baseline data were used and collected from 44 practices participating in a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial of behavioral health integration. Data included practice characteristics and payment strategies—fee-for-service payment, pay-for-performance incentives, grants, and graduate medical education funds. Descriptive and comparative analyses using Fisher’s exact tests and independent T-tests were conducted. The sample had 26 (59.1%) hospital-affiliated (hospital/health system-owned, academic medical centers and hospital-affiliated practices) and 18 (40.9%) non-hospital-affiliated practices (community health centers/federally qualified health centers and privately-owned practices). Most practices (88.6%) received payments through fee-for-service; 63.6% received pay-for-performance incentives; 31.8% received grant funds. Collaborative Care Management billing (CPT) codes were used in six (13.6%) practices. Over half (53.8%) of hospital-affiliated practices funded their behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives only, as opposed to two-thirds (66.7%) of non-hospital-affiliated practices required additional support from grants and/or general medical education funds. Primary care practices support behavioral health integration through diverse payment strategies. More hospital-affiliated practices compared to non-hospital-affiliated practices funded integrated behavioral health services through fee-for-service and pay-for-performance incentives. Practices without hospital affiliation relied on multiple funding streams including grants and/or general medical education funds, suggesting their approach to financial sustainment may be more precarious or challenging, compared to hospital-affiliated practices.

The COTAT (Collaborative Opioid Taper After Trauma) Study was a randomized trial of an opioid taper support program using a physician assistant (PA) to provide pain and opioid treatment guidance to primary care providers assuming care for adult patients with moderate to severe trauma discharged from a Level I trauma center on opioid therapy. Patients were recruited, assessed, and randomized individually by a surgery research recruitment team one to two days prior to discharge to home. Participants randomized to the opioid taper support program were contacted by phone within a few days of discharge by the PA interventionist to confirm enrollment and their primary care provider (PCP). The intervention consisted of PA support to the PCP as needed concerning pain and opioid care at weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 after discharge or until the PCP office indicated they no longer needed support or the patient had tapered off opioids. The PA was supervised by a pain physician-psychiatrist, a family physician, and a trauma surgeon. Patients randomized to usual care received standard hospital discharge instructions and written information on managing opioid medications after discharge. Trial results were analyzed using repeated measures analysis. 37 participants were randomized to the intervention and 36 were randomized to usual care. The primary outcomes of the trial were pain, enjoyment, general activity (PEG score) and mean daily opioid dose at 3 and 6 months after hospital discharge. Treatment was unblinded but assessment was blinded. No significant differences in PEG or opioid outcomes were noted at either time point. Physical function at 3 and 6 months and pain interference at 6 months were significantly better in the usual care group. No significant harms of the intervention were noted. COVID limited recruitment of high-risk opioid tolerant subjects, and limited contact between the PA interventionist and the participants and the PCPs. Our opioid taper support program failed to improve opioid and pain outcomes, since both control and intervention groups tapered opioids and improved PEG scores after discharge. Future trials of post-trauma opioid taper support with populations at higher risk of persistent opioid use are needed. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov under NCT04275258 11/02/2020. This trial was funded by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Washington Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (R49 CE003087, PI: Monica S. Vavilala, MD). The funder had no role in the analysis or interpretation of the data.

Background Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan-based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six-month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program-related health plan costs for each program are described. Results All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt-in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%-17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%-16.2%]) in 2018 (P = .36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions An opt-in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay summary Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual-eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing.

Background Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) could reduce cervical cancer deaths by 90%, colorectal cancer deaths by 70%, and lung cancer deaths by 95% if widely and effectively implemented in the USA. Yet, EBI implementation, when it occurs, is often suboptimal. This manuscript outlines the protocol for Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC), a new implementation science center funded as part of the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Consortium. OPTICC is designed to address three aims. Aim 1 is to develop a research program that supports developing, testing, and refining of innovative, efficient methods for optimizing EBI implementation in cancer control. Aim 2 is to support a diverse implementation laboratory of clinical and community partners to conduct rapid, implementation studies anywhere along the cancer care continuum for a wide range of cancers. Aim 3 is to build implementation science capacity in cancer control by training new investigators, engaging established investigators in cancer-focused implementation science, and contributing to the Implementation Science Consortium in Cancer. Methods Three cores serve as OPTICC’s foundation. The Administrative Core plans coordinates and evaluates the Center’s activities and leads its capacity-building efforts. The Implementation Laboratory Core (I-Lab) coordinates a network of diverse clinical and community sites, wherein studies are conducted to optimize EBI implementation, implement cancer control EBIs, and shape the Center’s agenda. The Research Program Core conducts innovative implementation studies, measurement and methods studies, and pilot studies that advance the Center’s theme. A three-stage approach to optimizing EBI implementation is taken—(I) identify and prioritize determinants, (II) match strategies, and (III) optimize strategies—that is informed by a transdisciplinary team of experts leveraging multiphase optimization strategies and criteria, user-centered design, and agile science. Discussion OPTICC will develop, test, and refine efficient and economical methods for optimizing EBI implementation by building implementation science capacity in cancer researchers through applications with our I-Lab partners. Once refined, OPTICC will disseminate its methods as toolkits accompanied by massive open online courses, and an interactive website, the latter of which seeks to simultaneously accumulate knowledge across OPTICC studies.

Introduction Cardiovascular disease risk calculators can inform and guide preventive strategies and treatment decisions by clinicians and patients. However, their uptake in primary care has been slow despite the recommendation in national cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Identifying the barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is essential for promoting their adoption. Methods The authors qualitatively analyzed structured physician educator notes written during an outreach education intervention with 44 small- and medium-sized primary care clinics that participated in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‒funded EvidenceNOW Healthy Hearts Northwest trial. The authors coded barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculation and aligned them to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results The authors identified 13 barriers from the physician educators’ notes. The majority (n=8, 62%) mapped to the framework's Inner Setting domain. The 5 most commonly noted barriers were (1) time constraints to use a calculator (N=23 clinics), (2) limitations to accessing a calculator or the necessary information to use a calculator (N=22 clinics), (3) no or minimal buy-in from clinicians or staff to use a calculator (N=19 clinics), (4) reported patient fear of side effects from statin medications or patient dislike of taking medications per the guidelines (N=17 clinics), and (5) lack of documented clinic workflow for using a calculator (N=16 clinics). Conclusions To improve the uptake of cardiovascular disease risk calculation in primary care, future cardiovascular disease prevention and implementation research should consider tailoring interventions to the common barriers to implementing cardiovascular disease risk calculation. Trial registration This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02839382.

Purpose: Primary care is challenged with safely prescribing opioids for patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), specifically to address risks for overdose, opioid use disorder, and death. We identify sociotechnical challenges, approaches, and recommendations in primary care to effectively track and monitor patients on long-term opioid therapy, a key component for supporting adoption of opioid prescribing guidelines. Methods: We examined qualitative data (field notes and postintervention interview and focus group transcripts) from 6 rural and rural-serving primary care organizations with 20 clinic locations enrolled in a study evaluating a practice redesign program to improve opioid medication management for CNCP patients. Two independent researchers used content analysis to categorize data into key themes to develop an understanding of sociotechnical factors critical to creating and implementing an approach to tracking and monitoring of patients on long-term opioid therapy in primary care practices. Results: Four factors were critical to developing a tracking and monitoring system. For each we describe common challenges and approaches used by the clinics to overcome then. The first factor, buy-in and participation, was essential for accomplishing the other 3. The other factors occurred sequentially: 1) cohort identification—finding the right patients, 2) data collection and extraction—tracking the right data, and 3) data use—monitoring patients and adjusting care processes. Conclusions: We identified common challenges and approaches to tracking and monitoring patients using long-term opioid therapy for CNCP in primary care. Based on these findings we provide recommendations to build capacity for tracking and monitoring for organizations that are engaged in improving safe opioid-prescribing practices for CNCP in primary care.

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.

Background Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices. Methods We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015–2016). Results Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists. Conclusions AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a substance use disorder (SUD) often present with co-occurring chronic conditions in primary care. Despite the high co-occurrence of chronic medical conditions and SUD, little is known about whether chronic condition outcomes or related service utilization in primary care varies between patients with versus without documented SUDs. This study examined whether having a SUD influenced the use of primary care services and common chronic condition outcomes for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort observational study examined electronic health record data from 21 primary care clinics in Washington and Idaho to examine differences in service utilization and clinical outcomes for diabetes, hypertension, and obesity in patients with and without a documented SUD diagnosis. Differences between patients with and without documented SUD diagnoses were compared over a three-year window for clinical outcome measures, including hemoglobin A1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and body mass index, as well as service outcome measures, including number of encounters with primary care and co-located behavioral health providers, and orders for prescription opioids. Adult patients (N = 10,175) diagnosed with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity before the end of 2014, and who had ≥2 visits across a three-year window including at least one visit in 2014 (baseline) and at least one visit occurring 12 months or longer after the 2014 visit (follow-up) were examined. RESULTS: Patients with SUD diagnoses and co-occurring chronic conditions were seen by providers more frequently than patients without SUD diagnoses (p’s

Background The Six Building Blocks for improving opioid management (6BBs) is a program for improving the management of patients in primary care practices who are on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain. The 6BBs include building leadership and consensus; aligning policies, patient agreements, and workflows; tracking and monitoring patient care; conducting planned, patient-centered visits; tailoring care for complex patients; and measuring success. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the development of a 6BBs implementation guide: a step-by-step approach for independently implementing the 6BBs in a practice. This mixed-method study seeks to assess practices’ use of the implementation guide to implement the 6BBs and the effectiveness of 6BBs implementation on opioid management processes of care among practices using the implementation guide. Methods Data collection is guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Proctor’s taxonomy of implementation outcomes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain. A diverse group of health care organizations with primary care clinics across the USA will participate in the study over 15 months. Qualitative data collection will include semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at each organization at two time points, notes from routine check-in calls, and document review. These data will be used to understand practices’ motivation for participation, history with opioid management efforts, barriers and facilitators to implementation, and implementation progress. Quantitative data collection will consist of a provider and staff survey, an implementation milestones assessment, and quarterly opioid prescribing quality measures. These data will supplement our understanding of implementation progress and will allow us to assess changes over time in providers’ opioid prescribing practices, prescribing self-efficacy, challenges to providing guideline-driven care, and practices’ opioid prescribing quality measures. Qualitative data will be coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Quantitative data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and clustered multivariate regression. Discussion This study contributes to the knowledge of the implementation and effectiveness of a team-based approach to opioid management in primary care practices. Information gleaned from this study can be used to inform efforts to curtail opioid prescribing and assist primary care practices considering implementing the 6BBs.

BackgroundDecreasing exposure to prescription opioids is critical to lowering risk of opioid misuse, overdose and opioid use disorder. This study reports a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial implementing an opioid taper support program directed to primary care providers (PCPs) of patients discharged from a level I trauma center to their homes distant from the center, and shares lessons for trauma centers in supporting these patients.MethodsThis longitudinal descriptive mixed-methods study uses quantitative/qualitative data from trial intervention arm patients to examine implementation challenges and outcomes: adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity. In the intervention, a physician assistant (PA) contacted patients after discharge to review their discharge instructions and pain management plan, confirm their PCP’s identity and encourage PCP follow-up. The PA reached out to the PCP to review the discharge instructions and offer ongoing opioid taper and pain management support.ResultsThe PA reached 32 of 37 patients randomized to the program. Of these 32, 81% discussed topics not targeted by the intervention (eg, social/financial). The PA identified and reached a PCP’s office for only 51% of patients. Of these, all PCP offices (100% adoption) received one to four consults (mean 1.9) per patient (fidelity). Few consults were with PCPs (22%); most were with medical assistants (56%) or nurses (22%). The PA reported that it was not routinely clear to patients or PCPs who was responsible for post-trauma care and opioid taper, and what the taper instructions were.ConclusionsThis level I trauma center successfully implemented a telephonic opioid taper support program during COVID-19 but adapted the program to allow nurses and medical assistants to receive it. This study demonstrates a critical need to improve care transition from hospitalization to home for patients discharged after trauma.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

When implementing interventions in primary care, tailoring implementation strategies to practice barriers can be effective, but additional work is needed to understand how to best select these strategies. This study sought to identify clinicians' contributions to the process of tailoring implementation strategies to barriers in clinical settings.We conducted a modified nominal group exercise involving 8 implementation scientists and 26 primary care clinicians in the WWAMI region Practice and Research Network. Each group identified implementation strategies it felt would best address barriers to using a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator previously identified across 44 primary care clinics from the Healthy Hearts Northwest pragmatic trial (2015 to 2018). These barriers had been mapped beforehand to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domains. We examined similarities and differences in the strategies that 30% or more of each group identified (agreed-on strategies) for each barrier and for barriers in each CFIR domain. We used the results to demonstrate how strategies might be tailored to individual clinics.Clinicians selected 23 implementation strategies to address 1 or more of the 13 barriers; implementation scientists selected 35. The 2 groups agreed on at least 1 strategy for barriers in each CFIR domain: Inner Setting, Outer Setting, Intervention Characteristics, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process.Clinician stakeholders identified implementation strategies that augmented those chosen by implementation scientists, suggesting that codesign of implementation processes between implementation scientists and clinicians may strengthen the process of tailoring strategies to overcome implementation barriers.

Introduction: Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program hubs are well-positioned to advance dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and training capacity nationally, though little is known about what D&I research support and services CTSAs provide. To address this gap, the CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Transfer Working Group conducted an environmental scan of CTSAs (2017–2018). Methods: Of 67 CTSA institutions, we contacted 43 that previously reported delivering D&I research services. D&I experts from these institutions were emailed a survey assessing D&I resources, services, training, and scientific projects. Responses were categorized and double-coded by study authors using a content analysis approach. Results: Thirty-five of the 43 D&I experts (81.4%) responded. Challenges to CTSAs in developing and supporting D&I science activities were related to inadequate D&I science workforce (45.7%) and lack of understanding of D&I science (25.7%). Services provided included consultation/mentoring programs (68%), pilot funding/grants (50%), and workshops/seminars/conferences (46%). Training and workforce development in D&I were frequently identified as future priorities. Recommendations included increase training to meet demand (68.6%), accessible D&I tools/resources (34.3%), greater visibility/awareness of D&I methods (34.3%), consultation services (22.9%), and expand D&I science workforce (22.9%). Conclusions: CTSAs have tremendous potential to support the advancement and impact of D&I science across the translational continuum. Despite the growing presence of D&I science in CTSAs, continued commitment and prioritization are needed from CTSA and institutional leadership to raise awareness of D&I science and its value, meet training demands, and develop necessary infrastructure for conducting D&I science.

Background: Practice facilitation is a commonly employed strategy to implement evidence-based programs into primary care settings. Preparing facilitators for this role requires an understanding of their training needs and support. Here we report on the experiences of facilitators who participated in a training program to support efforts to improve opioid medication management in primary care.Methods: Trainees with prior QI experience were recruited for the six-month training program. Each trainee recruited a clinic for which they would serve as an external facilitator to implement the Six Building Blocks program. At the end of the six-months, we conducted two semi-structured interviews with each trainee. The interviews focused on facilitators and barriers that the trainees experienced during the training and support provided. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the transcribed interviews.Results: Three of the five trainees completed the program. In addition to the in-depth understanding of the Six BB program, trainees valued the opportunity to build peer relationships which provided a supportive peer support group. They valued the availability of more experienced facilitators who supported and mentored them. They also mentioned the importance of providing helpful tools and resources and the availability of a clinical expert. Barriers focused on factors internal to the trainees’ clinical setting, the trainees limited clinical knowledge about chronic pain, and difficulty maintaining momentum for change due to the flexible timeline of the program itself.Conclusions: In addition to training on the content of an evidence-based programs, facilitators valued work with supportive peers and the mentoring of more experienced facilitators. Primary care improvement initiatives employing practice facilitators should consider these training needs and the resources required for this supportive infrastructure.

Background Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct‐to‐member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach. Methods BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation‐effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter. Results The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard. Conclusions The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer., Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. The implementation of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach among health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Introduction:Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is not a formal element of the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program, and D&I science activities across the CTSA Consortium are largely unknown.Methods:The CTSA Dissemination, Implementation, and Knowledge Translation Working Group surveyed CTSA leaders to explore D&I science-related activities, barriers, and needed supports, then conducted univariate and qualitative analyses of the data.Results:Out of 67 CTSA leaders, 55.2% responded. CTSAs reported directly funding D&I programs (54.1%), training (51.4%), and projects (59.5%). Indirect support (e.g., promoted by CTSA without direct funding) for D&I activities was higher – programs (70.3%), training (64.9%), and projects (54.1%). Top barriers included funding (39.4%), limited D&I science faculty (30.3%), and lack of D&I science understanding (27.3%). Respondents (63.4%) noted the importance of D&I training and recommended coordination of D&I activities across CTSAs hubs (33.3%).Conclusion:These findings should guide CTSA leadership in efforts to raise awareness and advance the role of D&I science in improving population health.

Background: Timeliness is one of the fundamental yet understudied quality metrics of cancer care. Little is known about cancer treatment delay among adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. This study assessed cancer treatment delay, with a specific focus on facility transfer and diagnosis/treatment interval. Methods: Based on MultiCare Health System's (MHS's) institutional cancer registry data of AYA patients diagnosed during 2006–2015, this study analyzed patient demographics, insurance, clinical characteristics, and time of diagnosis and treatment initiation. Chi-squared tests, cumulative hazard estimates, and Cox proportional regression were used for univariable analysis. Multivariate regression models were used to test the association between care transfer and days of interval or prolonged delay, controlling for baseline parameters. Results: Of 840 analytic AYA cases identified, 457 (54.5%) were both diagnosed and treated within MHS. A total of 45.5% were either diagnosed or treated elsewhere. Mean and median intervals for treatment initiation were 27.03 (95% CI = 21.94–33.14) and 8.00 days (95% CI = 5.00–11.00), respectively, with significant differences between patients with and without facility transfer. Transfer was significantly correlated with longer length of diagnosis-to-treatment interval. Treatment delay, ≥1 week, was associated with transfer, female sex, older age, no surgery involvement, and more treatment modalities. Treatment delay, ≥4 weeks, was associated with transfer, female sex, no insurance, and no surgery involvement. Conclusion: In a community care setting, the diagnosis-to-treatment interval is significantly longer for transferred AYA cancer patients than for patients without a transfer. Future studies are warranted to explore the prognostic implications and the reasons for delays within specific cancer types.

Telemedicine (TM) enabled by digital health technologies to provide medical services has been considered a key solution to increasing health care access in rural communities. With the immediate need for remote care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many health care systems have rapidly incorporated digital technologies to support the delivery of remote care options, including medication treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD). In responding to the opioid crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials and scientific communities strongly support and advocate for greater use of TM-based medication treatment for opioid use disorder (MOUD) to improve access to care and have suggested that broad use of TM during the pandemic should be sustained. Nevertheless, research on the implementation and effectiveness of TM-based MOUD has been limited. To address this knowledge gap, the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) funded (via the NIH HEAL Initiative) a study on Rural Expansion of Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (Rural MOUD; CTN-0102) to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of adding TM-based MOUD to rural primary care for expanding access to MOUD. In preparation for this large-scale, randomized controlled trial incorporating TM in rural primary care, a feasibility study is being conducted to develop and pilot test implementation procedures. In this commentary, we share some of our experiences, which include several challenges, during the initial two-month period of the feasibility study phase. While these challenges could be due, at least in part, to adjusting to the COVID-19 pandemic and new workflows to accommodate the study, they are notable and could have a substantial impact on the larger, planned pragmatic trial and on TM-based MOUD more broadly. Challenges include low rates of identification of risk for OUD from screening, low rates of referral to TM, digital device and internet access issues, workflow and capacity barriers, and insurance coverage. These challenges also highlight the lack of empirical guidance for best TM practice and quality remote care models. With TM expanding rapidly, understanding implementation and demonstrating what TM approaches are effective are critical for ensuring the best care for persons with OUD.

The efficient and effective movement of research into practice is acknowledged as crucial to improving population health and assuring return on investment in healthcare research. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science which sponsors Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) recognizes that dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences have matured over the last 15 years and are central to its goals to shift academic health institutions to better align with this reality. In 2016, the CTSA Collaboration and Engagement Domain Task Force chartered a D&I Science Workgroup to explore the role of D&I sciences across the translational research spectrum. This special communication discusses the conceptual distinctions and purposes of dissemination, implementation, and translational sciences. We propose an integrated framework and provide real-world examples for articulating the role of D&I sciences within and across all of the translational research spectrum. The framework’s major proposition is that it situates D&I sciences as targeted “sub-sciences” of translational science to be used by CTSAs, and others, to identify and investigate coherent strategies for more routinely and proactively accelerating research translation. The framework highlights the importance of D&I thought leaders in extending D&I principles to all research stages.

Background Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems often vary implementation (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT) and allowed participating health systems to adapt the program. This mixed-methods study explored which program adaptations might have achieved higher screening rates.Methods We used a multi-method approach. First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine potential explanatory factors consistent with higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates.Results Seventeen health systems took part in at least one year of BeneFIT. The overall screening completion rate was 20% (4–28%) in Year 1, and 25% (12–35%) in Year 2 of the program. Health systems that used two or more adaptations had higher screening rates, and no single adaptation clearly led to higher screening rates. In Year 1, smaller systems (having 2 clinics) were successful with a phone reminder (n = 4) or a patient incentive (n = 3). Of the 10 systems that implemented BeneFIT in both years, seven improved in Year 2.Conclusions Health systems can choose between many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan’s mailed FIT program. Screening completion rates are positively associated with the number of adaptations implemented by a health system. Health system size emerged as an important contextual factor, with different solutions for larger than smaller health systems.Contributions to the Literature· Our paper analyzes adaptations that enable health care providers to implement mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs in delivery systems.· Our results explore which adaptations made by health systems to mailed FIT programs are related to screening rate improvements. Our analysis shows that a health system’s organizational characteristics in combination with the adaptations themselves may affect resulting CRC screening rates and implementation.· Our paper describes different pathways that health care organizations can use to implement CRC screening outreach to improve the health of their populations. We show results of implementation flexibility and customizing CRC screening outreach to particular clinic environments.

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.

BeneFIT is a 4-year observational study of a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans in Oregon and Washington. In Health Plan Oregon's (HPO) collaborative model, HPO mails FITs that enrollees return to their clinics for processing. In Health Plan Washington's (HPW) centralized model, FITs are mailed directly to enrollees who return them to a centralized laboratory. This paper examines model-specific Year 1 development and implementation costs and estimates costs per screened enrollee. Staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets. Non-labor costs were from study and external data. Data matched each plan's 2016 development and implementation dates. HPO development costs were $23.0K, primarily administration (eg, clinic recruitment). HPW development costs were $37.3K, 38.8% for FIT selection and mailing/tracking protocols. Year 1 implementation costs were $51.6K for HPO and $139.7K for HPW, reflecting HPW's greater outreach. Labor was 50.4% ($26.0K) of HPO's implementation costs, primarily enrollee eligibility and processing returned FITs, and was shared by HPO ($17.0K) and 6 participating clinics ($9.0K). Labor was 10.5% of HPW's implementation costs, primarily administration and enrollee eligibility. HPO's implementation costs per enrollee were 12.3% higher ($18.36) than for HPW ($16.34). Similar proportions of completed FITs among screening-eligibles produced a 15% lower cost per completed FIT in HPW ($89.75) vs. HPO ($105.79). Implementation costs for HPO only (without clinic costs) were $15.16/mailed introductory letter, $16.09/mailed FIT, and $87.35/completed FIT, comparable to HPW. Results highlight cost implications of different approaches to implementing a mailed FIT program in 2 Medicaid/Medicare health plans.

ObjectiveLung cancer is increasingly recognised as a heterogeneous disease. Recent advances with targeted therapies for lung cancer with oncogenic mutations have greatly improved the prognosis for this subset of patients, yet little is known about their experiences. This study aimed to identify the needs and explore the healthcare experiences of these advanced patients with oncogenic mutation driven lung cancer.DesignQualitative interviews with patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with oncogenic alterations in anaplastic lymphoma kinase, epidermal growth factor receptor or c-ros oncogene 1.SettingsPatients were recruited from online lung cancer support groups within the USA. Interviews were conducted remotely or in person, transcribed verbatim and analysed using an iterative inductive and deductive process.ParticipantsWe included 39 patients (11 males and 28 females) with a median age of 48.ResultsTwo primary theme categories emerged: patients' unmet needs and improving healthcare experiences. Unmet needs are related to patients’ desire to view their disease as a chronic illness, aspire to live a meaningful existence without financial devastation, desire for understanding along with emotional support and needing help with practical matters. Improving healthcare experiences involved patients’ desire to trust the expertise of clinical providers, receive reliable care and be treated holistically and as informed partners.ConclusionsPatients with lung cancer with oncogenic mutations live uncharted experiences. Targeted therapy brings hope, but uncertainty is daunting. Patients grapple with the meaning and purpose of their lives while day-to-day obligations remain challenging. Healthcare teams are instrumental in their care experiences, and patients desire providers who are up-to-date on advances in the field and treat them as whole persons.