Implementation successes and challenges in participating in a pragmatic study to improve colon cancer screening: perspectives of health center leaders

Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings.

METHODS

SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up.

DISCUSSION

Findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions

PURPOSE

We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs.

CONCLUSION

Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Qualitative Research and Applications in Colorectal Surgery

Traditionally employed in medical anthropologic and sociologic literature, qualitative methods are emerging as an essential component of clinical research as surgeons and researchers strive to optimize care informed by patient perspectives. Qualitative methods in health care-related research may be used to understand subjective experiences, beliefs, and concepts that are not captured using quantitative analyses and to gain in-depth knowledge of a specific context or culture. A qualitative approach may also be employed to explore under-researched problems and generate new ideas. Here, we provide an overview of aspects to consider when designing and conducting a qualitative research study.

Developing patient-refined colorectal cancer screening materials: application of a virtual community engagement approach

INTRODUCTION

In partnership with a federally qualified health center (FQHC), an adapted virtual version of boot camp translation (BCT) was used to elicit input from Spanish-speaking Latino patients and staff to develop messaging and patient education materials for follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal fecal testing. We describe how we adapted an existing in-person BCT process to be delivered virtually and present evaluations from participants on the virtual format.

METHODS

Three virtual BCT sessions were facilitated by bilingual staff and conducted via Zoom. These sessions included introductions and discussions on colorectal cancer (CRC), CRC screening, and gathered feedback from participants on draft materials. Ten adults were recruited from the FQHC. A research team member from the FQHC served as the point of contact (POC) for all participants and offered Zoom introductory sessions and/or technology support before and during the sessions. Following the third session, participants were invited to complete an evaluation form about their virtual BCT experience. Using a 5-point Likert Scale (where 5 = strongly agree), questions focused on session utility, group comfort level, session pacing, and overall sense of accomplishment.

RESULTS

Average scores ranged from 4.3 to 5.0 indicating strong support towards the virtual BCT sessions. Additionally, our study emphasized the importance of a POC to provide technical support to participants throughout the process. Using this approach, we successfully incorporated feedback from participants to design culturally relevant materials to promote follow-up colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

We recommend ongoing public health emphasis on the use of virtual platforms for community engaged work.

"We bleed for our community:" A qualitative exploration of the implementation of a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial from the perspectives of community health center professionals

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial implementation continues to shift toward pragmatic design, with the goal of increasing future adoption in clinical practice. Yet, few pragmatic trials within clinical settings have qualitatively assessed stakeholder input, especially from those most impacted by research implementation and outcomes, i.e., providers and staff. Within this context, we conducted a qualitative study of the implementation of a pragmatic digital health obesity trial with employees at a Federally qualified health center (FQHC) network in central North Carolina.

METHODS

Participant recruitment was conducted through purposive sampling of FQHC employees from a variety of backgrounds. Two researchers conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews and collected demographic data. Interviews were digitally recorded, professionally transcribed and double-coded by two independent researchers using NVivo 12. Coding discrepancies were reviewed by a third researcher until intercoder consensus was reached. Responses were compared within and across participants to elucidate emergent themes.

RESULTS

Eighteen qualitative interviews were conducted, of whom 39% provided direct medical care to patients and 44% worked at the FQHC for at least seven years. Results illuminated the challenges and successes of a pragmatically designed obesity treatment intervention within the community that serves medically vulnerable patients. Although limited time and staffing shortages may have challenged recruitment processes, respondents described early buy-in from leadership; an alignment of organizational and research goals; and consideration of patient needs as facilitators to implementation. Respondents also described the need for personnel power to sustain novel research interventions and considerations of health center resource constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this study contribute to the limited literature on pragmatic trials utilizing qualitative methods, particularly in community-based obesity treatment. To continue to merge the gaps between research implementation and clinical care, qualitative assessments that solicit stakeholder input are needed within pragmatic trial design. For maximum impact, researchers may wish to solicit input from a variety of professionals at trial onset and ensure that shared common goals and open collaboration between all partners is maintained throughout the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03003403) on December 28, 2016.

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents despite the availability of effective screening methods. Outreach activities can improve CRC screening rates but rely on accurate identification of patients due for screening. We report on data challenges in rural clinics and Medicaid health plans in Oregon in identifying patients eligible for CRC screening, in a large project implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and patient navigation.

METHODS

We analyzed data from clinic intake surveys and administrative claims. Clinics were asked to identify total population numbers relevant to CRC screening and follow-up. Health plans also identified enrollees eligible for CRC screening in Spring, 2021. Clinic staff validated patient lists for eligibility using their electronic health records (EHR).

RESULTS

EHR features varied across the 29 participating and 28 responding clinics. Among the 28 responding clinics, 21 were able to report their Medicaid population (75%), 19 reported the number of patients aged 50 to 75 (68%) and the number screened for CRC in the last year (68%). Only 8 (29%) were able to report screening details such as number screened by FIT and 9 were able to report on patients with an abnormal FIT or colonoscopy completed after FIT (32%). Health plans had challenges properly identifying where enrollees received care and had missing data for race and ethnicity (range 22 to 34% unknown race, <1% to 24% unknown ethnicity).

DISCUSSION

Most participating rural primary care clinics and Medicaid health plans experienced challenges identifying the population due for a CRC screening outreach program. Better EHR functionality and data reporting capabilities could help rural clinics apply population-based strategies and ultimately attenuate disparities in cancer screening and follow-up.

Examining colorectal cancer screening uptake and health provider recommendations among underserved middle aged and older African Americans

Background: The purpose of this study is to determine whether underserved middle-aged and older African Americans are receiving a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test (sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy) and if recommended by their provider. Additionally, we examined correlates of both provider recommendation and uptake of CRC screening. Methods: Seven hundred forty African American individuals, aged 55 and older, participated in this local community cross-sectional survey. We used a multivariate technique of logistic regression. Results: One out of three participants reported that they never received a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy for CRC screening. More than 31% indicted that their providers never suggested CRC testing. However, participants who indicated that their providers recommended sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy were almost 49 times (odds ratio [OR]: 48.9, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.5-81.2) more likely to obtain it compared to their counterparts who were not advised to have these procedures. Our data suggest that African American men were significantly less likely than women to receive recommendations from their providers (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Furthermore, controlling for other variables, the following factors: 1) living arrangement (OR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.02-2.04), 2) health maintenance organization (HMO) membership (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.28-2.67), 3) number of providers (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.32), 4) satisfaction with access to and quality of care (OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.03-1.51), 5) depressive symptoms (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.98), and 6) gastrointestinal conditions (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.16-2.58) were associated with obtaining a sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy test. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the absence of a provider recommendation is the primary barrier preventing underserved older African Americans from obtaining CRC screening. In addition, our data revealed significant association between obtaining CRC screening and some of the predisposing characteristics of participants, satisfaction with access to and quality of care, and physical and mental health. These findings are consistent with this notion that disparities in health care for African Americans can be traced back to four primary factors: patients, healthcare providers, the healthcare system, and society as a whole, and emphasize the need for establishing theory-driven, culturally-sensitive, and cost-effective CRC screening interventions that recognize and address the constraints to cancer screening experienced by this segment of population.

Electronic Health Record-Integrated Clinical Decision Support for Clinicians Serving Populations Facing Health Care Disparities: Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

To review current studies about designing and implementing clinician-facing clinical decision support (CDS) integrated or interoperable with an electronic health record (EHR) to improve health care for populations facing disparities.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify studies published between January 1, 2011 and October 22, 2021 about clinician-facing CDS integrated or interoperable with an EHR. We screened abstracts and titles and extracted study data from articles using a protocol developed by team consensus. Extracted data included patient population characteristics, clinical specialty, setting, EHR, clinical problem, CDS type, reported user-centered design, implementation strategies, and outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 28 studies (36 articles) included. Most studies were performed at safety net institutions (14 studies) or Indian Health Service sites (6 studies). CDS tools were implemented in primary care outpatient settings in 24 studies (86%) for screening or treatment. CDS included point-of-care alerts (93%), order facilitators (46%), workflow support (39%), relevant information display (36%), expert systems (11%), and medication dosing support (7%). Successful outcomes were reported in 19 of 26 studies that reported outcomes (73%). User-centered design was reported during CDS planning (39%), development (32%), and implementation phase (25%). Most frequent implementation strategies were education (89%) and consensus facilitation (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

CDS tools may improve health equity and outcomes for patients who face disparities. The present review underscores the need for high-quality analyses of CDS-associated health outcomes, reporting of user-centered design and implementation strategies used in low-resource settings, and methods to disseminate CDS created to improve health equity.

Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Screening reduces incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), yet US screening rates are low, particularly among Medicaid enrollees in rural communities. We describe a two-phase project, SMARTER CRC, designed to achieve the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot^SM objectives by reducing the burden of CRC on the US population. Specifically, SMARTER CRC aims to test the implementation, effectiveness, and maintenance of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program to improve rates of CRC screening, follow-up colonoscopy, and referral to care in clinics serving rural Medicaid enrollees.

Methods

Phase I activities in SMARTER CRC include a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program involving three Medicaid health plans and 30 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho; the implementation of the program is supported by training and practice facilitation. Participating clinic units were randomized 1:1 into the intervention or usual care. The intervention combines (1) mailed fecal testing outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and (2) patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal test result. We will evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the intervention and track adaptations to the intervention and to implementation strategies, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Our primary effectiveness outcome is receipt of any CRC screening within 6 months of enrollee identification. Our primary implementation outcome is health plan- and clinic-level rates of program delivery, by component (mailed FIT and patient navigation). Trial results will inform phase II activities to scale up the program through partnerships with health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations that serve rural primary care clinics; scale-up will include webinars, train-the-trainer workshops, and collaborative learning activities.

Discussion

This study will test the implementation, effectiveness, and scale-up of a multi-component mailed fecal testing and patient navigation program to improve CRC screening rates in rural Medicaid enrollees. Our findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

Trial registration

Registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI’s Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP #: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff

PURPOSE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program.

METHODS

We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates.

RESULTS

We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can improve health outcomes, but screening rates remain low across the US. Mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an effective way to increase CRC screening rates, but is still underutilized. In particular, cost of FIT has not been explored in relation to practice characteristics, FIT selection, and screening outreach approaches.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey drawing from prior validated measures to 252 primary care practices to assess characteristics and context that could affect the implementation of direct mail fecal testing programs, including the cost, source of test, and types of FIT used. We analyzed the range of costs for the tests, and identified practice and test procurement factors. We examined the distributions of practice characteristics for FIT use and costs answers using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We used Pearson’s chi-squared test of association and interpreted a low p-value (e.g. < 0.05) as evidence of association between a given practice characteristic and knowing the cost of FIT or fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

Results

Among the 84 viable practice survey responses, more than 10 different types of FIT/FOBTs were in use; 76% of practices used one of the five most common FIT types. Only 40 practices (48%) provided information on FIT costs. Thirteen (32%) of these practices received the tests for free while 27 (68%) paid for their tests; median reported cost of a FIT was $3.04, with a range from $0.83 to $6.41 per test. Costs were not statistically significantly different by FIT type. However, practices who received FITs from manufacturer’s vendors were more likely to know the cost (p = 0.0002) and, if known, report a higher cost (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that most practices without lab or health system supplied FITs are spending more to procure tests. Cost of FIT may impact the willingness of practices to distribute FITs through population outreach strategies, such as mailed FIT. Differences in the ability to obtain FIT tests in a cost-effective manner could have consequences for implementation of outreach programs that address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07576-4.

Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates

Screening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) remain low, especially among certain populations. Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) outreach initiated by U.S. health plans could reach underserved individuals, while solving CRC screening data and implementation challenges faced by health clinics. We report the models and motivations of two health insurance plans implementing a mailed FIT program for age-eligible U.S. Medicaid and Medicare populations. One health plan operates in a single state with ~220,000 enrollees; the other operates in multiple states with ~2 million enrollees. We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and observed leadership and clinic staff planning during program development and implementation. Interviews were transcribed and coded using a content analysis approach; coded interview reports and meeting minutes were iteratively reviewed and summarized for themes. Between June and September 2016, nine participants were identified, and all agreed to the interview. Interviews revealed that organizational context was important to both organizations and helped shape program design. Both organizations were hoping this program would address barriers to their prior CRC screening improvement efforts and saw CRC screening as a priority. Despite similar motivations to participate in a mailed FIT intervention, contextual features of the health plans led them to develop distinct implementation models: a collaborative model using some health clinic staffing versus a centralized model operationalizing outreach primarily at the health plan. Data are not yet available on the models' effectiveness. Our findings might help inform the design of programs to deliver mailed FIT outreach.

Walking the talk on multi-level interventions: The power of parsimony

There is strong consensus regarding the need for multi-level interventions (MLIs) to address today's complex health problems. Several longstanding social ecological frameworks are commonly referred to in guiding MLI development. The specificity and comprehensiveness of these frameworks unwittingly suggest that the totality of included influences are important in all health contexts. Not surprisingly, when viewed as requiring intervention at all levels of influence, MLIs are often considered to be infeasible due to sizeable cost and logistical barriers. Thus, efforts to develop and evaluate MLIs have been extremely limited, and comparatively few examples are found in the health literature. We argue that operational frameworks to identify which levels matter in which contexts - henceforth, referred to as parsimony - could accelerate the field towards broader use of MLIs. We suggest a hypothetical operational framework informed by complexity theory and pragmatic approaches that could enable us to conceptualize, design and evaluate MLIs to consider where reflexive and recursive process mechanisms that cross levels should be targeted by MLI. The approach also emphasizes sustainability of MLIs. Without developing parsimony-based operational frameworks to move us forward, we fear that little will change, and we will simply continue to talk, without proceeding to the walk.

A qualitative study of patient preferences for prompts and reminders for a direct-mail fecal testing program

Programs that directly mail fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to patients can increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, especially in low-income and Latino populations. Few studies have explored patient reactions to prompts or reminders that accompany such programs. As part of the Participatory Research to Advance Colon Cancer Prevention pilot study, which tested prompts and reminders to a direct-mail FIT program in a large, urban health center, we conducted telephone interviews among English- and Spanish-speaking participants who were assigned to receive a series of text message prompts, automated phone call reminders, and/or live phone call reminders. We analyzed interviews using a qualitative content analysis approach. We interviewed 41 participants, including 25 responders (61%) and 16 nonresponders (39%) to the direct-mail program. Participants appreciated program ease and convenience. Few participants recalled receiving prompts or automated/live reminders; nevertheless, the vast majority (95%, n = 39) thought reminders were acceptable and helpful and suggested that 2-3 reminders delivered starting 1 week after the mailed FIT would optimally encourage completion. Prompts and reminders used with mailed-FIT programs are accepted by patients, and my help boost response rates.

What's the "secret sauce"? How implementation variation affects the success of colorectal cancer screening outreach

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems vary how they implement (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT), and participating health systems could adapt the program. This multi-method study explored which program adaptations might have resulted in higher screening rates.

METHODS

First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we generated an overall model by fitting a weighted regression line to our data. Third, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine how combinations of conditions were linked to higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates.

RESULTS

Seventeen health systems took part in at least 1 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, small systems, with just one clinic, that used phone reminders (n = 2) met the implementation success threshold (≥ 19% screening rate) while systems with > 1 clinic were successful when offering a patient incentive (n = 4), scrubbing mailing lists (n = 4), or allowing mailed FIT returns with no other adaptations (n = 1). In year 2, larger systems with 2-4 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 their CRC screening rates in year 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Health systems can choose among many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan's mailed FIT program. Different combinations of adaptations led to success with health system size emerging as an important contextual factor.

Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based programs such as mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can only affect health outcomes if they can be successfully implemented. However, attempts to implement programs are often limited by organizational-level factors.

OBJECTIVES

As part of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) pragmatic trial, we evaluated how organizational factors impacted the extent to which health centers implemented a mailed FIT outreach program.

DESIGN

Eight health centers participated in STOP CRC. The intervention consisted of customized electronic health record tools and clinical staff training to facilitate mailing of an introduction letter, FIT kit, and reminder letter. Health centers had flexibility in how they delivered the program.

MAIN MEASURES

We categorized the health centers' level of implementation based on the proportion of eligible patients who were mailed a FIT kit, and applied configurational comparative methods to identify combinations of relevant organizational-level and program-level factors that distinguished among high, medium, and low implementing health centers. The factors were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research model.

KEY RESULTS

FIT tests were mailed to 21.0-81.7% of eligible participants at each health center. We identified a two-factor solution that distinguished among levels of implementation with 100% consistency and 100% coverage. The factors were having a centralized implementation team (inner setting) and mailing the introduction letter in advance of the FIT kit (intervention characteristics). Health centers with high levels of implementation had the joint presence of both factors. In health centers with medium levels of implementation, only one factor was present. Health centers with low levels of implementation had neither factor present.

CONCLUSIONS

Full implementation of the STOP CRC intervention relied on a centralized implementation team with dedicated staffing time, and the advance mailing of an introduction letter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742065 Registered 05 December 2012-Prospectively registered.

First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders

Background

Colorectal cancer screening rates remain low, especially among certain racial and ethnic groups and the uninsured and Medicaid insured. Clinics and health care systems have adopted population-based mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs to increase screening, and now health insurance plans are beginning to implement mailed FIT programs. We report on challenges to and successes of mailed FIT programs during their first year of implementation in two health plans serving Medicaid and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees.

Methods

This qualitative descriptive study gathered data through in-depth interviews with staff and leaders at each health plan (n = 10). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, field notes from program planning meetings between the research team and the health plans, and internal research team debriefs informed interview guide development. Qualitative research staff used Atlas.ti to code the health plan interviews and develop summary themes through an iterative content analysis approach.

Results

We identified first-year implementation challenges in five thematic areas: 1) program design, 2) vendor experience, 3) engagement/communication, 4) reaction/satisfaction of stakeholders, and 5) processing/returning of mailed kits. Commonly experienced challenges by both health plans related to the time-consuming nature of the programs to set up, and complexities and delays in working with vendors. We found implementation successes in the same five thematic areas as well as four additional areas of: 1) leadership support, 2) compatibility with the health plan, 3) broader impacts, and 4) collaboration with researchers. Commonly experienced successes included the ability to adapt the mailed FIT program to the individual health plan culture and needs, and the synchronicity between the programs and their organizational missions and goals.

Conclusions

Both health plans successfully adapted mailed FIT programs to their own culture and resources and used their strong quality management resources to maximize success in overcoming the time demands of setting up the program and working with their vendors. Mailed FIT programs administered by health plans, especially those serving Medicaid- and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare-insured populations, may be an important resource to support closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening among traditionally underserved populations.

Does increased implementation support improve community clinics' guideline-concordant care? Results of a mixed methods, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial

Background

Disseminating care guidelines into clinical practice remains challenging, partly due to inadequate evidence on how best to help clinics incorporate new guidelines into routine care. This is particularly true in safety net community health centers (CHCs).

Methods

This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a parallel mixed methods design. Twenty-nine CHC clinics were randomized to receive increasingly intensive implementation support (implementation toolkit (arm 1); toolkit + in-person training + training webinars (arm 2); toolkit + training + webinars + offered practice facilitation (arm 3)) targeting uptake of electronic health record (EHR) tools focused on guideline-concordant cardioprotective prescribing for patients with diabetes. Outcomes were compared across study arms, to test whether increased support yielded additive improvements, and with 137 non-study CHCs that share the same EHR as the study clinics. Quantitative data from the CHCs’ EHR were used to compare the magnitude of change in guideline-concordant ACE/ARB and statin prescribing, using adjusted Poisson regressions. Qualitative data collected using diverse methods (e.g., interviews, observations) identified factors influencing the quantitative outcomes.

Results

Outcomes at CHCs receiving higher-intensity support did not improve in an additive pattern. ACE/ARB prescribing did not improve in any CHC group. Statin prescribing improved overall and was significantly greater only in the arm 1 and arm 2 CHCs compared with the non-study CHCs. Factors influencing the finding of no additive impact included: aspects of the EHR tools that reduced their utility, barriers to providing the intended implementation support, and study design elements, e.g., inability to adapt the provided support. Factors influencing overall improvements in statin outcomes likely included a secular trend in awareness of statin prescribing guidelines, selection bias where motivated clinics volunteered for the study, and study participation focusing clinic staff on the targeted outcomes.

Conclusions

Efforts to implement care guidelines should: ensure adaptability when providing implementation support and conduct formative evaluations to determine the optimal form of such support for a given clinic; consider how study data collection influences adoption; and consider barriers to clinics’ ability to use/accept implementation support as planned. More research is needed on supporting change implementation in under-resourced settings like CHCs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531. Registered 15 December 2014.

Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study

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.

Qualitative Assessment of Washington State Medicaid Health Plan Readiness to Implement Systems-Based Approaches to Colorectal Cancer Screening

Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs by Medicaid health plans could address colorectal cancer screening disparities. Our objective is to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program by Washington State Medicaid health plans. We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership from 2 statewide and 3 national Medicaid plans. We organized the interview questions around the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We analyzed interview transcripts, guided by directed content analysis, and identified facilitators and barriers to Medicaid health plan implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs. Robust health plan (inner setting) quality improvement infrastructures were facilitators. Lack of statewide Medicaid policy incentives (external setting) to increase colorectal cancer screening were barriers to potential implementation. Efforts to address identified barriers through local and national policies and statewide data sharing efforts may support Medicaid health plan implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs.

Diagnostic colonoscopy completion after abnormal fecal immunochemical testing and quality of tests used at 8 Federally Qualified Health Centers in Southern California: Opportunities for improving screening outcomes

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) of stool blood depends on high rates of colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal FITs and the use of high-quality tests. This study characterized colonoscopy referral and completion among patients with abnormal FITs and the types of FITs implemented in a sample of Southern California Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).

METHODS

FQHCs in San Diego, Imperial, and Los Angeles Counties were invited to define a cohort of ≥150 consecutive patients with abnormal FITs in 2015-2016 and to provide data on sex, insurance status, diagnostic colonoscopy referrals and completion within 6 months of abnormal FITs, and the types (brands) of FITs implemented. The primary outcomes were the proportions with colonoscopy referrals and completion for all patients at each FQHC and in aggregate.

RESULTS

Eight FQHCs provided data for 1229 patients with abnormal FITs; 46% were male, and 20% were uninsured. Among patients with abnormal FITs, 89% (1091 of 1229; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.91) had a colonoscopy referral, and 44% (539 of 1229; 95% CI, 0.41-0.47) had colonoscopy completion. Across FQHCs, the range for colonoscopy referral was 73% to 96%, and the range for completion was 18% to 57%. Six of the 8 FQHCs (75%) reported FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In a sample of Southern California FQHCs, diagnostic colonoscopy completion after abnormal FITs was substantially below the nationally recommended benchmark to achieve 80% completion, and the use of FIT brands with limited data to support their effectiveness was high. These findings suggest a need for policies and multilevel interventions to promote diagnostic colonoscopy among individuals with abnormal FITs and the use of higher quality FITs.

Challenges in assessing population reach in a pragmatic trial

Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial conducted at federally qualified health centers and designed to “Reach” as many unscreened patients as possible by directly mailing them fecal screening tests.

STOP CRC used an electronic health record registry to identify individuals' needing CRC screening and mail interventions to them. The registry was updated daily removing individuals completing CRC screening or those who no longer were clinic patients. Reach, a component RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance), is defined as the absolute number, percent, and representativeness of individuals “willing to participate in” or “exposed to” an initiative. We describe the complexities of measuring Reach in a pragmatic trial.

Overall 21,134 patients were on the registry list for at least one day, with 18,226 remaining after removing patients completing screening before any mailings. Observed Reached (the percent of individuals exposed to the intervention) using each denominator was 30.7% and 35.6% respectively. Reach improved only modestly after accounting for factors that made it impossible for clinics to send mailings. Few differences were observed in demographic and health care utilization factors among individuals Reached versus not Reached, suggesting that health center Implementation was more influential than patients' willingness or ability to participate.

A pragmatic definition of Reach that accounted for dynamic changes the absolute number eligible and the proportion exposed was more useful than traditional definitions of Reach. Actual Reach was dependent on Implementation and not patient level characteristics.

Clinical Trials Registration Number: ClincalTrials.gov (NCT01742065).

The Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) as an Environment for Dissemination and Implementation Research: A Case Study of Developing a Multi-Site Research Study in Precision Medicine

Context:

In existence for nearly 25 years, the Healthcare Systems Research Network (HCSRN) is an established and sustainable network of health care systems that serves as a “real world” laboratory to enable the integration of research findings into practice. The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how the HCSRN serves as an ideal environment for studying dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices into health care systems through the example of developing a multi-site study on the implementation of evidence-based precision medicine practices.

Case description:

The “Implementing Universal Lynch Syndrome Screening (IMPULSS)” study (NIH R01CA211723) involves seven HCSRN health care systems and two external health care systems. The IMPULSS study will describe and explain organizational variability around Lynch syndrome (LS) screening to identify which factors in different organizational contexts are important for successful implementation of LS screening programs and will create a toolkit to facilitate organizational decision making around implementation and improvement of precision medicine programs in health care systems.

Major Themes:

The strengths of the HCSRN that facilitate D&I research include: 1) a culture of collaboration, 2) standardization of data and processes across systems, and 3) researchers embedded in diverse health care systems. We describe how these strengths contributed to developing the IMPULSS study.

Conclusion:

Given the importance of conducting research in real world settings to improve patient outcomes, the unique strengths of the HCSRN are of vital importance. The IMPULSS study is one case example of how the strengths of the HCSRN make it an excellent environment for research on implementing evidence-based precision medicine practices in health care systems.

Data-Powered Participatory Decision Making: Leveraging Systems Thinking and Simulation to Guide Selection and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions

A robust evidence base supports the effectiveness of timely colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, follow-up of abnormal results, and referral to care in reducing CRC morbidity and mortality. However, only two-thirds of the US population is current with recommended screening, and rates are much lower for those who are vulnerable because of their race/ethnicity, insurance status, or rural location. Multiple, multilevel factors contribute to observed disparities, and these factors vary across different populations and contexts. As highlighted by the Cancer Moonshot Blue Ribbon Panel working groups focused on Prevention and Early Detection and Implementation Science inadequate CRC screening and follow-up represent an enormous missed opportunity in cancer prevention and control. To measurably reduce CRC morbidity and mortality, the evidence base must be strengthened to guide the identification of (1) multilevel factors that influence screening across different populations and contexts, (2) multilevel interventions and implementation strategies that will be most effective at targeting those factors, and (3) combinations of strategies that interact synergistically to improve outcomes. Systems thinking and simulation modeling (systems science) provide a set of approaches and techniques to aid decision makers in using the best available data and research evidence to guide implementation planning in the context of such complexity. This commentary summarizes current challenges in CRC prevention and control, discusses the status of the evidence base to guide the selection and implementation of multilevel CRC screening interventions, and describes a multi-institution project to showcase how systems science can be leveraged to optimize selection and implementation of CRC screening interventions in diverse populations and contexts.

Pragmatic clinical trials offer unique opportunities for disseminating, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based practices into clinical care: Proceedings of a workshop

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems (HCS) Research Collaboratory hosted a workshop to explore challenges and strategies for the dissemination, implementation, and sustainability of findings from pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) embedded in HCS. PCTs are designed to assess the impact of interventions delivered in usual or real-world conditions and leverage existing infrastructure to answer important clinical questions. The goal of the workshop was to discuss strategies for conducting impactful future PCTs that bridge the gap between evidence, practice, and policy. This paper summarizes presentations about how to design and conduct PCTs embedded in HCS and use dissemination and implementation strategies during the planning and conduct of projects, emphasizing the ever-changing world of care delivery and the need for pragmatic trial operations to adapt at various levels of operation.

Effectiveness of a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Program in Community Health Clinics: The STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015).

INTERVENTIONS

Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT.

RESULTS

Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

Positive predictive values of fecal immunochemical tests used in the STOP CRC pragmatic trial

Annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is cost-effective for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, FIT positivity rates and positive predictive value (PPV) can vary substantially, with false-positive (FP) results adding to colonoscopy burden without improving cancer detection. Our objective was to describe FIT PPV and the factors associated with FP results among patients undergoing CRC screening. In an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial of mailed-FIT outreach, clinics delivered one of three FIT brands (InSure, OC-Micro, and Hemosure). Patients who had a positive FIT result and a follow-up colonoscopy were included in this analysis (N = 1130). Patients' demographic and medical histories were abstracted from electronic health records (EHR). Associations with a FP result (ie, a positive FIT result with no evidence of advanced neoplasia during follow-up colonoscopy) were evaluated for FIT brand and patient factors using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. The mean proportion of FIT-positive results ranged from 8% in centers using the OC-Micro test to 21% for Hemosure. PPVs for advanced neoplasia were 0.30 to 0.17, respectively (P for χ2  = 0.08). In multivariable-adjusted models, use of Hemosure was associated with greater odds of a FP result than OC-Micro (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.47-8.56) or InSure (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.44-6.68). However, only female sex (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19-2.10) and history of a colorectal condition (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.13-4.15) were significantly associated with FP. In conclusion, FIT positivity varied by brand, and FP results differed by patient factors available through the EHR. These results can be used to minimize the frequency of FP results, reducing patient distress and colonoscopy burden.

Performance of a quantitative fecal immunochemical test for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is easier to use and more sensitive than the guaiac fecal occult blood test, but it is unclear how to optimize FIT performance. We compared the sensitivity and specificity for detecting advanced colorectal neoplasia between single-sample (1-FIT) and two-sample (2-FIT) FIT protocols at a range of hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a positive test.

METHODS

We recruited 2,761 average-risk men and women ages 49-75 referred for colonoscopy within a large nonprofit, group-model health maintenance organization (HMO), and asked them to complete two separate single-sample FITs. We generated receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves to compare sensitivity and specificity estimates for 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols among those who completed both FIT kits and colonoscopy. We similarly compared sensitivity and specificity between hemoglobin concentration cutoffs for a single-sample FIT.

RESULTS

Differences in sensitivity and specificity between the 1-FIT and 2-FIT protocols were not statistically significant at any of the pre-specified hemoglobin concentration cutoffs (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 μg/g). There was a significant difference in test performance of the one-sample FIT between 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) and each of the higher pre-specified cutoffs. Disease prevalence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

A two-sample FIT is not superior to a one-sample FIT in detection of advanced adenomas; the one-sample FIT at a hemoglobin concentration cutoff of 50 ng/ml (10 μg/g) is significantly more sensitive for advanced adenomas than at higher cutoffs. These findings apply to a population of younger, average-risk patients in a U.S. integrated care system with high rates of prior screening.