Values and Meaning in Rural Primary Care Practices: Implications for Interventions Within Context

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND

Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients.

METHODS

This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues.

RESULTS

Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.