Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago

Mi-CARE: Comparing Three Evidence-Based Interventions to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening among Ethnic Minorities within Three Different Clinical Contexts

Multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to improve the completion of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and other safety net settings in marginalized communities. Little effort has been made, however, to evaluate their relative effectiveness across different clinical contexts and populations. To this end, we tested the relative effectiveness of three EBIs (mailed birthday cards, lay navigation, and provider-delivered education) among a convenience sample of 1252 patients (aged 50-75 years old, who were due for CRC screening and scheduled for a visit at one of three clinics within a network of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) in the United States. To be eligible for the study, patients had to identify as African American (AA) or Latino American (LA). We compared the effects of the three EBIs on CRC screening completion using logistic regression. Overall, 20% of the study population, an increase from a baseline of 13%, completed CRC screening. Clinical demographics appeared to influence the effectiveness of the EBIs. Mailed birthday reminders appeared to be the most effective within the multi-ethnic clinic (p = 0.03), provider-delivered education within the predominantly LA clinic (p = 0.02), and lay navigation within the predominantly AA clinic (p = 0.03). These findings highlight the importance of understanding clinical context when selecting which evidence-based interventions to deploy.

How to Perform Economic Evaluation in Implementation Studies: Imaging-Specific Considerations and Comparison of Financial Models

Economic evaluation for implementation science merits unique considerations for a local context, including the main audience of local decision makers. This local context is in contrast with traditional methods for developing coverage policy for medical tests and interventions, which typically emphasize benefits and costs more broadly, for society. Regardless of the strength of evidence backing the efficacy or effectiveness of a clinical intervention, local context is paramount when implementing evidence-based practices. Understanding the costs throughout the processes of implementing a program will inform the decision of whether to plan for and adopt the program, how to sustain the program, and whether to scale up widely. To guide economic evaluation for implementation of evidence-based imaging practices, we describe approaches that consider local stakeholders' needs and connect these with outcomes of cost and clinical utility. Illustrative examples of implementation strategies and economic evaluation are explored in areas of cancer screening and care delivery.

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.

Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program

•

Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in clinics increase colorectal cancer screening.

•

Even more effective are multi-component interventions (MCIs) vs a single strategy.

•

We examined the effectiveness of MCIs in CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

•

Combination of 3–4 EBIs or 2–3 strategies led to significant increase in screening.

•

Some MCIs led up to 7.2 percentage points annual increases.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality. Implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) increases CRC screening. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which combinations of EBIs or strategies led to increases in clinic-level screening rates among clinics participating in CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Data were collected from CRCCP clinics between 2015 and 2018 and the analysis was conducted in 2020. The outcome variable was the annual change in clinic level CRC screening rate in percentage points. We used first difference (FD) estimator of linear panel data regression model to estimate the associations of outcome with independent variables, which include different combinations of EBIs and intervention strategies. The study sample included 486 unique clinics with 1156 clinic years of total observations. The average baseline screening rate was 41 % with average annual increase of 4.6 percentage points. Only two out of six combinations of any two EBIs were associated with increases in screening rate (largest was 6.5 percentage points, P < 0.001). Any combinations involving three EBIs or all four EBIs were significantly associated with the outcome with largest increase of 7.2 percentage points (P < 0.001). All interventions involving 2–3 strategies led to increases in rate with largest increase associated with the combination of increasing community demand and access (6.1 percentage points, P < 0.001). Clinics implementing combinations of these EBIs, particularly those including three or more EBIs, often were more likely to have impact on screening rate change than those implementing none.

Pragmatic considerations and approaches for measuring staff time as an implementation cost in health systems and clinics: key issues and applied examples

Background

As the field of implementation science wrestles with the need for system decision-makers to anticipate the budget impact of implementing new programs, there has been a push to report implementation costs more transparently. For this purpose, the method of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) has been heralded as a pragmatic advance. However, a recent TDABC review found that conventional methods for estimating staff time remain resource-intensive and called for simpler alternatives. Our objective was to conceptually compare conventional and emerging TDABC approaches to measuring staff time.

Methods

Our environmental scan of TDABC methods identified several categories of approaches for staff time estimation; across these categories, staff time was converted to cost as a pro-rated fraction of salary/benefits. Conventional approaches used a process map to identify each step of program delivery and estimated the staff time used at each step in one of 3 ways: (a) uniform estimates of time needed for commonly occurring tasks (self-report), (b) retrospective “time diary” (self-report), or (c) periodic direct observation. In contrast, novel semi-automated electronic health record (EHR) approaches “nudge” staff to self-report time for specific process map step(s)—serving as a contemporaneous time diary. Also, novel EHR-based automated approaches include timestamps to track specific steps in a process map. We compared the utility of these TDABC approach categories according to the 5 R’s model that measures domains of interest to system decision-makers: relevance, rapidity, rigor, resources, and replicability, and include two illustrative case examples.

Results

The 3 conventional TDABC staff time estimation methods are highly relevant to settings but have limited rapidity, variable rigor, are rather resource-intensive, and have varying replicability. In contrast to conventional TDABC methods, the semi-automated and automated EHR-based approaches have high rapidity, similar rigor, similar replicability, and are less resource-intensive, but have varying relevance to settings.

Conclusions

This synthesis and evaluation of conventional and emerging methods for staff time estimation by TDABC provides the field of implementation science with options beyond the current approaches. The field remains pressed to innovatively and pragmatically measure costs of program delivery that rate favorably across all of the 5 R’s domains.

The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky

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

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers

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