Recruiting community health centers into pragmatic research: Findings from STOP CRC

Effort Required and Lessons Learned From Recruiting Health Plans and Rural Primary Care Practices for a Cancer Screening Outreach Study

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting organizations (i.e., health plans, health systems, or clinical practices) is important for implementation science, yet limited research explores effective strategies for engaging organizations in pragmatic studies. We explore the effort required to meet recruitment targets for a pragmatic implementation trial, characteristics of engaged and non-engaged clinical practices, and reasons health plans and rural clinical practices chose to participate.

METHODS

We explored recruitment activities and factors associated with organizational enrollment in SMARTER CRC, a randomized pragmatic trial to increase rates of CRC screening in rural populations. We sought to recruit 30 rural primary care practices within participating Medicaid health plans. We tracked recruitment outreach contacts, meeting content, and outcomes using tracking logs. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we analyzed interviews, surveys, and publicly available clinical practice data to identify facilitators of participation.

RESULTS

Overall recruitment activities spanned January 2020 to April 2021. Five of the 9 health plans approached agreed to participate (55%). Three of the health plans chose to operate centrally as 1 site based on network structure, resulting in 3 recruited health plan sites. Of the 101 identified practices, 76 met study eligibility criteria; 51% (n = 39) enrolled. Between recruitment and randomization, 1 practice was excluded, 5 withdrew, and 7 practices were collapsed into 3 sites for randomization purposes based on clinical practice structure, leaving 29 randomized sites. Successful recruitment required iterative outreach across time, with a range of 2 to 17 encounters per clinical practice. Facilitators to recruitment included multi-modal outreach, prior relationships, effective messaging, flexibility, and good timing.

CONCLUSION

Recruiting health plans and rural clinical practices was complex and iterative. Leveraging existing relationships and allocating time and resources to engage clinical practices in pragmatic implementation research may facilitate more diverse representation in future trials and generalizability of research findings.

Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

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.

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.

Facilitators and Barriers to Recruiting Ambulatory Oncology Practices Into a Large Multisite Study: Mixed Methods Study

Background

Practice-based research is essential to generate the data necessary to understand outcomes in ambulatory oncology care. Although there is an increased interest in studying ambulatory oncology care, given the rising patient volumes and complexity in those settings, little guidance is available on how best to recruit ambulatory oncology practices for research.

Objective

This paper aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to recruiting ambulatory oncology practices into a large multisite study.

Methods

Using a mixed methods design, we sought to recruit 52 ambulatory oncology practices that have participated in a state-wide quality improvement collaborative for the quantitative phase. We used 4 domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to describe facilitators and barriers to recruitment.

Results

We successfully recruited 28 of the 52 collaborative-affiliated practices, collecting survey data from 2223 patients and 297 clinicians. Intervention attributes included multimodal outreach and training activities to assure high fidelity to the data collection protocol. The implementation process was enhanced through interactive training and practice-assigned champions responsible for data collection. External context attributes that facilitated practice recruitment included partnership with a quality improvement collaborative and the inclusion of a staff member from the collaborative in our team. Key opinion leaders within each practice who could identify challenges to participation and propose flexible solutions represented internal context attributes. We also reported lessons learned during the recruitment process, which included navigating diverse approaches to human subjects protection policies and understanding that recruitment could be a negotiated process that took longer than anticipated, among others.

Conclusions

Our experience provides other researchers with challenges to anticipate and possible solutions for common issues. Using the CFIR as a guide, we identified numerous recruitment barriers and facilitators and devised strategies to enhance recruitment efforts. In conclusion, researchers and clinicians can partner effectively to design and implement research protocols that ultimately benefit patients who are increasingly seeking care in ambulatory practices.

Strategies for recruitment in general practice settings: the iSOLVE fall prevention pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

Falls are common among older people, and General Practitioners (GPs) could play an important role in implementing strategies to manage fall risk. Despite this, fall prevention is not a routine activity in general practice settings. The iSOLVE cluster randomised controlled trial aimed to evaluate implementation of a fall prevention decision tool in general practice. This paper sought to describe the strategies used and reflect on the enablers and barriers relevant to successful recruitment of general practices, GPs and their patients.

Methods

Recruitment was conducted within the geographical area of a Primary Health Network in Northern Sydney, Australia. General practices and GPs were engaged via online surveys, mailed invitations to participate, educational workshops, practitioner networks and promotional practice visits. Patients 65 years or older were recruited via mailed invitations, incorporating the practice letterhead and the name(s) of participating GP(s). Observations of recruitment strategies, results and enabling factors were recorded in field notes as descriptive and narrative data, and analysed using mixed-methods.

Results

It took 19 months to complete recruitment of 27 general practices, 75 GPs and 560 patients. The multiple strategies used to engage general practices and GPs were collectively useful in reaching the targeted sample size. Practice visits were valuable in engaging GPs and staff, establishing interest in fall prevention and commitment to the trial. A mix of small, medium and large practices were recruited. While some were recruited as a whole-practice, other practices had few or half of the number of GPs recruited. The importance of preventing falls in older patients, simplicity of research design, provision of resources and logistic facilitation of patient recruitment appealed to GPs. Recruitment of older patients was successfully achieved by mailed invitations which was a strategy that was familiar to practice staff and patients. Patient response rates were above the expected 10% for most practices. Many practices (n = 17) achieved the targeted number of 20 or more patients.

Conclusions

Recruitment in general practice settings can be successfully achieved through multiple recruitment strategies, effective communication and rapport building, ensuring research topic and design suit general practice needs, and using familiar communication strategies to engage patients.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered on 29 April 2015 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry www.anzctr.org.au (trial ID: ACTRN12615000401550).

A Survey of Provider Attitudes, Beliefs, and Perceived Barriers Regarding a Centralized Direct-Mail Colorectal Cancer Screening Approach at Community Health Centers

Background: Colorectal cancer screening (CRC) rates are low, particularly among individuals with low socioeconomic status. Organized CRC screening programs have demonstrated success in increasing screening rates. Little is known about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening or how they are influenced by an organized CRC screening program. Methods: In 2014 and 2016, providers from 26 safety net clinics in Oregon and Northern California were invited to complete baseline and follow-up online surveys for the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) study. The provider survey link was sent electronically to primary care providers serving adult patients. Providers were sent reminders every 2 weeks via email to complete the survey, up to 3 reminders total. In this article, we describe learnings about provider attitudes, beliefs, and practices related to CRC screening after implementation of the STOP CRC program. Results: A total of 166 unique providers completed baseline and/or follow-up surveys, representing 228 responses. Main themes included (1) favorable shifts in attitude toward fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and direct-mail cancer screening programs, (2) changes in provider perception of key barriers, and (3) growing interest in centralized automated systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and eligible for population-based outreach. Discussion: Providers are interested in improved information systems for identifying patients due for CRC screening and delivering population-based outreach (ie, to distribute FIT kits outside of the clinic visit) to help reduce health system- and patient-level barriers to screening. Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial (NCT) Identifier NCT01742065.

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).

A cost-effectiveness analysis of a colorectal cancer screening program in safety net clinics

STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program within eight federally-qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon and California promoting fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) with appropriate colonoscopy follow-up. Results are presented of a cost-effectiveness analysis of STOP CRC. Organization staff completed activity-based costing spreadsheets, assigning labor hours by intervention activity and job-specific wage rates. Non-labor costs were from study data. Data were collected over February 2014-February 2016; analyses were performed in 2016-2017. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using completed FITs adjusted for number of screening-eligible patients (SEPs), as the effectiveness measure were calculated overall and by organization. Intervention delivery costs totaled $305 K across eight organizations (range: $10.2 K-$110 K). Overall delivery cost per SEP was $14.43 (range: $10.37-$19.10). The largest cost category across organizations was implementation, specifically mailing preparation. The overall ICER was $483 per SEP-adjusted completed FIT (range: $96-$1021 among organizations with positive effectiveness). Lagged data accounting for implementation delay produced comparable results. The costs of colonoscopies following abnormal FITs decreased the overall ICER to S409 because usual care clinics generated more such colonoscopies than intervention clinics. Using lagged data, follow-up colonoscopies increase the ICER by 4.3% to $460. Results indicate the complex implications for cost-effectiveness of implementing standard CRC screening within a pragmatic setting involving FQHCs with varied patient populations, clinical structures, and resources. Performance variation across organizations emphasizes the need for future evaluations that inform the introduction of efficient CRC screening to underserved populations.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions and Implementation Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers

While colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been increasing in the general population, rates are considerably lower in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which serve a large proportion of uninsured and medically vulnerable patients. Efforts to screen eligible patients must be accelerated if we are to reach the national screening goal of 80% by 2018 and beyond. To inform this work, we conducted a survey of key informants at FQHCs in eight states to determine which evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to promote CRC screening are currently being used, and which implementation strategies are being employed to ensure that the interventions are executed as intended. One hundred and forty-eight FQHCs were invited to participate in the study, and 56 completed surveys were received for a response rate of 38%. Results demonstrated that provider reminder and recall systems were the most commonly used EBIs (44.6%) while the most commonly used implementation strategy was the identification of barriers (84.0%). The mean number of EBIs that were fully implemented at the centers was 2.4 (range 0-7) out of seven. Almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that their FQHCs were not using any EBIs to increase CRC screening. Full implementation of EBIs was correlated with higher CRC screening rates. These findings identify gaps as well as the preferences and needs of FQHCs in selecting and implementing EBIs for CRC screening.

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.

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

Little is known about the challenges faced by community clinics who must address clinical priorities first when participating in pragmatic studies. We report on implementation challenges faced by the eight community health centers that participated in Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), a large comparative effectiveness cluster-randomized trial to evaluate a direct-mail program to increase the rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We conducted interviews, at the onset of implementation and 1 year later, with center leaders to identify challenges with implementing and sustaining an electronic medical record (EMR)-driven mailed program to increase CRC screening rates. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to thematically analyze the content of meeting discussions and identify anticipated and experienced challenges. Common early concerns were patients' access to colonoscopy, patients' low awareness of CRC screening, time burden on clinic staff to carry out the STOP CRC program, inability to accurately identify eligible patients, and incompatibility of the program's approach with the patient population or organizational culture. Once the program was rolled out, time burden remained a primary concern and new organizational capacity and EMR issues were raised (e.g., EMR staffing resources and turnover in key leadership positions). Cited program successes were improved CRC screening processes and rates, more patients reached, reduced costs, and improved patient awareness, engagement, or satisfaction. These findings may inform any clinic considering mailed fecal testing programs and future pragmatic research efforts in community health centers.

Pragmatic clinical trials and the consent process

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are a relatively new methodological approach to the execution of clinical research that can increase research efficiency and provide access to unique data. Some have suggested that the costs and delays associated with obtaining informed consent could make PCTs difficult or even impossible to execute. Alternative consent models have been proposed, some of which lower standards of disclosure, delay consent, or waive it altogether. We analyze the permissibility of changes to informed consent in the context of Canadian research ethics policies, legislation, common law, professional codes of ethics, and professional standards of practice. We find that Canadian law and policy relating to informed consent clearly applies to any clinician who might be involved in a PCT. In addition, existing consent norms seem unable to accommodate alternative consent models for pragmatic research if such models would involve lowering the standard of disclosure. The strong emphasis on the primacy of individual rights that exist in law and in research ethics norms cannot easily coexist with strategies that involve either waiver of consent requirements or the provision of incomplete information about the research prior to enrolment. If Canadian policy-makers wish to create the regulatory flexibility necessary to accommodate altered consent and disclosure, it is likely this will require the alteration of existing health information legislation, national research ethics policy, and professional standards.

The Association Between Primary Source of Healthcare Coverage and Colorectal Cancer Screening Among US Veterans

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a deadly but largely preventable disease. Screening improves outcomes, but screening rates vary across healthcare coverage models. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), screening rates are high; however, it is unknown how CRC screening rates compare for Veterans with other types of healthcare coverage.

AIMS

To determine whether Veterans with Veteran-status-related coverage (VA, military, TRICARE) have higher rates of CRC screening than Veterans with alternate sources of healthcare coverage.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Veterans 50-75 years from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey. We examined CRC screening rates and screening modalities. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify the role of coverage type, demographics, and clinical factors on screening status.

RESULTS

The cohort included 22,138 Veterans. Of these, 76.7% reported up-to-date screening. Colonoscopy was the most common screening modality (83.7%). Screening rates were highest among Veterans with Veteran-status-related coverage (82.3%), as was stool-based screening (10.8%). The adjusted odds of up-to-date screening among Veterans with Veteran-status-related coverage were 83% higher than among Veterans with private coverage (adjusted OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.52-2.22). Additional predictors of screening included older age, black race, high income, access to medical care, frequent medical visits, and employed or married status.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening rates were highest among Veterans with Veteran-status-related coverage. High CRC screening rates among US Veterans may be related to system-level characteristics of VA and military care. Insight to these system-level characteristics may inform mechanisms to improve CRC screening in non-VA settings.