An Examination of Multilevel Factors Influencing Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Accountable Care Organization Settings: A Mixed-Methods Study

Using cognitive interviews to improve a measure of organizational readiness for implementation

BACKGROUND

Organizational readiness is a key factor for successful implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs), but a valid and reliable measure to assess readiness across contexts and settings is needed. The R = MC² heuristic posits that organizational readiness stems from an organization's motivation, capacity to implement a specific innovation, and its general capacity. This paper describes a process used to examine the face and content validity of items in a readiness survey developed to assess organizational readiness (based on R = MC²) among federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) EBIs.

METHODS

We conducted 20 cognitive interviews with FQHC staff (clinical and non-clinical) in South Carolina and Texas. Participants were provided a subset of items from the readiness survey to review. A semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit feedback from participants using "think aloud" and probing techniques. Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling approach and interviews were conducted virtually using Zoom and WebEx. Participants were asked 1) about the relevancy of items, 2) how they interpreted the meaning of items or specific terms, 3) to identify items that were difficult to understand, and 4) how items could be improved. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in ATLAS.ti. Findings were used to revise the readiness survey.

RESULTS

Key recommendations included reducing the survey length and removing redundant or difficult to understand items. Additionally, participants recommended using consistent terms throughout (e.g., other units/teams vs. departments) the survey and changing pronouns (e.g., people, we) to be more specific (e.g., leadership, staff). Moreover, participants recommended specifying ambiguous terms (e.g., define what "better" means).

CONCLUSION

Use of cognitive interviews allowed for an engaged process to refine an existing measure of readiness. The improved and finalized readiness survey can be used to support and improve implementation of CRCS EBIs in the clinic setting and thus reduce the cancer burden and cancer-related health disparities.

Developing a co-production strategy to facilitate the adoption and implementation of evidence-based colorectal cancer screening interventions for rural health systems: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) interventions have not been broadly adopted in rural primary care settings. Co-production of implementation strategies through a bundled approach may be promising in closing this gap by helping rural healthcare practitioners select and implement the best fitting CRCS interventions to the local context. This paper describes the process and outcomes of co-development and delivery of the bundled implementation strategy to improve adoption and implementation of CRCS interventions with two rural clinics.

METHODS

We used a bundle of implementation strategies with a core focus on academic-clinical partnership development (strategy 1) and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles (strategy 2) to identify clinical partner interests/preferences on delivery methods and content needed to facilitate intervention identification and implementation that improves CRCS. We also developed an implementation blueprint for each clinic (strategy 3) through an online blueprinting process based on adapted "Putting Public Health Evidence in Action" (PPHEA) training curriculum. Clinic physicians and staff (n = 7) were asked to evaluate the bundled approach based on overall reactions and perceptions of innovation characteristics using 5-point Likert scale. After completing the bundled approach, we collected implementation outcomes and limited intervention effectiveness of the CRCS evidence-based interventions (EBIs) developed through the process.

RESULTS

Our co-production strategy yielded a prototype online blueprinting process consisting of 8 distance-learning PPHEA modules that guide selection and implementation of EBIs tailored to CRCS. Modules were delivered to clinic participants with minor adaptations, using PDSA cycle to improve quality of module contents and formats. Overall, participants in both clinics reported positive reactions toward the bundled approach. Both clinics reported improvements in how they perceived the characteristics of the innovation (the bundled approach) to tailor selected CRCS EBIs. As a result of the bundled strategies, each clinic selected and adopted specific EBI(s) with the varying degrees of implementation and CRCS outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The bundle of implementation strategies used were feasible and acceptable in rural primary care practices to facilitate the use of EBIs to improve CRCS.

A systematic review of ethnic disparities in the uptake of colorectal cancer screening

AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality, but variation exists in uptake. Ethnicity is suggested to play a role; however, there is no high-level evidence to support this. We aim to clarify the impact of Ethnicity on CRC screening uptake and our barriers to its understanding.

METHODS

A systematic review to identify studies reporting on the participation of ethnic minorities in CRC screening worldwide was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar databases up until 31 May 2019 were searched. Compliance with screening according to ethnic groups and screening modality was evaluated compared to the 'White' control group.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included in the review reporting on 2,084,213 patients. Substantial variation in categorisation of ethnicities (40 sub-categories), screening modality studied and confounding factors accounted for was observed. 8/15 studies for 'Blacks', 10/13 for 'Hispanics', 2/2 for 'Asians' and 1/1 for 'South East Asians' suggest a less likely or significantly decreased compliance with screening for all screening modalities (p < .05) compared to 'Whites'. Interestingly 'Japanese', 'Vietnamese' and 'Filipino' groups consistently show no difference in the uptake of CRC screening compared to the 'White' majority.

CONCLUSION

This is the only systematic review on this topic. It highlights the inconsistency in screening uptake behaviour in different ethnic minority groups and identifies barriers like variation in ethnicity categorisation, screening modality and study design utilised to understanding the intricacies of this relationship. Further collaboration and action needs to be undertaken internationally to clarify and improve inequity in the uptake of screening.

A multilevel, low literacy dual language intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening in community clinics in Florida: A randomized controlled trial

One of the largest disparities in cancer mortality in the United States occurs with colorectal cancer (CRC). The objectives of this multilevel two-arm intervention trial were to compare the efficacy of two interventions to promote CRC screening (CRCS) with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and examine sociodemographic and psychosocial predictors of FIT screening. Individuals ages 50-75 (n = 326) who were not up-to-date with CRCS, could understand English or Spanish, and were at average CRC risk were recruited from two federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Florida. Prior to intervention, CRCS rates in the FQHCs were 27.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Study enrollment occurred April 2018-November 2019. System-level intervention components included leveraging electronic medical record (EMR) systems and delivering patient reminders. Participants were randomized to C-CARES (education+FIT) or C-CARES Plus (C-CARES+personalized coaching [for those not completing FIT within 90 days]). Primary outcome was completed FIT returned <1 year. Primary outcome analyses were performed using logistic regression. 225 participants completed FIT (69.0% [95% CI: 64.0-74.0%]), with no significant difference in FIT uptake by intervention arm (67.3% C-CARES Plus vs. 70.8% C-CARES; p = .49). FIT uptake was significantly higher among patients who received intervention materials in Spanish (77.2%) compared to those who received materials in English (63.2%, p < .01). The personalized coaching in the C-CARES Plus arm did not appear to provide added benefit beyond the C-CARES intervention. Multilevel approaches that include EMR prompts, reminders, FIT access, and provision of low-literacy, language-concordant education can support efforts to improved community clinics' CRCS rates. Future efforts should focus on repeat FIT screening. Trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03906110).

A Qualitative Analysis of Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening among Korean Americans

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most-commonly diagnosed cancer among Korean Americans after breast cancer, with incidence rates exceeding that of lung, prostate, and stomach cancers. However, CRC screening rates are lower among Korean Americans than the general U.S. population. To understand barriers to screening in this population, we conducted 11 focus groups with 51 Korean Americans ages 40+ in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area between 2011 and 2016. Our analysis used the Health Belief Model as a framework. Motivators to seek screening include a family or personal history of cancer or gastrointestinal disease (high perceived susceptibility), knowing people with CRC (high severity), favorable test results reducing worry (high benefits), and physician recommendations (cues to action). Barriers to screening include the common misperception that Korean lifestyles prevent CRC (low susceptibility), the belief that cancer is normal for older adults (low severity), the assumption that screening only benefits symptomatic people (low benefits), the costs and potential risks of testing along with a preference for traditional Korean approaches to wellness (high barriers), and lack of health insurance (low self-efficacy). Interventions seeking to increase the rate of cancer screening in the Korean American community will benefit from emphasizing the burden from CRC among Korean Americans (increasing perceived susceptibility to CRC), explaining that colonoscopies can prevent CRC rather than just diagnosing it (increasing perceived benefits of screening), reducing anxieties about test procedures and embarrassment (reducing perceived barriers to screening), and improving clinical communication (improving cues to action and self-efficacy).

Initiation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Medicaid Enrollees

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have explored how individual- and practice-level factors influence colorectal cancer screening initiation among Medicaid enrollees newly age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (i.e., turning 50 years). This study explored colorectal cancer screening initiation among newly age-eligible Medicaid enrollees in Oregon.

METHODS

Medicaid claims data (January 2013 to June 2015) were used to conduct multivariable logistic regression (in 2018 and 2019) to explore individual- and practice-level factors associated with colorectal cancer screening initiation among 9,032 Medicaid enrollees.

RESULTS

A total of 17% of Medicaid enrollees initiated colorectal cancer screening; of these, 64% received a colonoscopy (versus fecal testing). Colorectal cancer screening initiation was positively associated with turning 50 years in 2014 (versus 2013; OR=1.21), being Hispanic (versus non-Hispanic white; OR=1.41), urban residence (versus rural; OR=1.23), and having 4 to 7 (OR=1.90) and 8 or more (OR=2.64) primary care visits compared with 1 to 3 visits in the year after turning 50 years. Having 3 or more comorbidities was inversely associated with initiation (OR=0.75). The odds of screening initiation were also higher for practices with 3 to 4 (OR=1.26) and 8 or more (OR=1.34) providers compared with 1 to 2 providers, and negatively associated with percentage of Medicaid panel age eligible for colorectal cancer screening (OR=0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Both individual- and practice-level factors are associated with disparities in colorectal cancer screening initiation among Oregon Medicaid enrollees. Future work promoting colorectal cancer screening might focus on additional barriers to the timely initiation of colorectal cancer screening and explore the effect of practice in-reach and population outreach strategies.