Implementation of cancer screening in rural primary care practices after joining an accountable care organisation: a multiple case study

Factors associated with colorectal cancer screening adherence and the impact of COVID-19 on screening patterns in Connecticut, USA

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Many communities remain under the 80% CRC screening goal. We aimed to identify factors associated with non-adherence to CRC screening and to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in CRC screening patterns. A retrospective review of patients aged 50-75 years seen at the Griffin Faculty Physicians primary care offices between January 2019 and December 2020 was performed. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence. Of 12,189 patients, 66.2% had an updated CRC screen. On univariable logistic regression, factors associated with CRC screening non-adherence included age ≤ 55 years [odds ratio (OR) 2.267, p < 0.001], White/Caucasian race (OR 0.858, p = 0.030), Medicaid insurance (OR 2.097, p < 0.001), morbid obesity (OR 1.436, p < 0.001), current cigarette smoking (OR 1.849, p < 0.001), and elevated HbA1c (OR 1.178, p = 0.004). Age, Medicaid insurance, morbid obesity, current smoking, and HbA1c ≥ 6.5% remained significant in the final multivariable model. Compared to 2019, there was an 18.2% decrease in the total number of CRC screening tests in 2020. The proportion of colonoscopy procedures was lower in 2020 compared to the proportion of colonoscopy procedures conducted in 2019 (65.9% vs 81.7%, p < 0.001), with a concurrent increase in stool-based tests. CRC screening rates in our population are comparable to national statistics but below the 80% goal. COVID-19 affected CRC screening. Our results underscore the need to identify patient groups most vulnerable to missing CRC screening and highlight the importance of stool-based testing to bridge screening gaps.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities

BACKGROUND

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science.

METHODS

We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success.

CONCLUSION

Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.