Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

Clinician- and Patient-Directed Communication Strategies for Patients With Cancer at High Mortality Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

Serious illness conversations (SICs) that elicit patients' values, goals, and care preferences reduce anxiety and depression and improve quality of life, but occur infrequently for patients with cancer. Behavioral economic implementation strategies (nudges) directed at clinicians and/or patients may increase SIC completion.

Objective

To test the independent and combined effects of clinician and patient nudges on SIC completion.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized trial was conducted from September 7, 2021, to March 11, 2022, at oncology clinics across 4 hospitals and 6 community sites within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey among 163 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians and 4450 patients with cancer at high risk of mortality (≥10% risk of 180-day mortality).

Interventions

Clinician clusters and patients were independently randomized to receive usual care vs nudges, resulting in 4 arms: (1) active control, operating for 2 years prior to trial start, consisting of clinician text message reminders to complete SICs for patients at high mortality risk; (2) clinician nudge only, consisting of active control plus weekly peer comparisons of clinician-level SIC completion rates; (3) patient nudge only, consisting of active control plus a preclinic electronic communication designed to prime patients for SICs; and (4) combined clinician and patient nudges.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a documented SIC in the electronic health record within 6 months of a participant's first clinic visit after randomization. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis at the patient level.

Results

The study accrued 4450 patients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 59-75 years]; 2352 women [52.9%]) seen by 163 clinicians, randomized to active control (n = 1004), clinician nudge (n = 1179), patient nudge (n = 997), or combined nudges (n = 1270). Overall patient-level rates of 6-month SIC completion were 11.2% for the active control arm (112 of 1004), 11.5% for the clinician nudge arm (136 of 1179), 11.5% for the patient nudge arm (115 of 997), and 14.1% for the combined nudge arm (179 of 1270). Compared with active control, the combined nudges were associated with an increase in SIC rates (ratio of hazard ratios [rHR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.00-2.40]; P = .049), whereas the clinician nudge (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.41; P = .79) and patient nudge (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.33]; P = .93) were not.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized trial, nudges combining clinician peer comparisons with patient priming questionnaires were associated with a marginal increase in documented SICs compared with an active control. Combining clinician- and patient-directed nudges may help to promote SICs in routine cancer care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04867850.

Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies.

OBJECTIVE

To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).

DESIGN

Clustered stepped-wedge trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week "steps."

INTERVENTION

Outreach to 50-75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting.

MAIN MEASURES

Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each "step" by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and "step" by FQHC.

KEY RESULTS

FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation "steps" compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across "steps."

CONCLUSIONS

As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04585919.

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities

BACKGROUND

The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered.

MAIN BODY

This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science.

CONCLUSION

For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. We examined how health equity was operationalized and addressed at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership (n = 19) and staff (n = 12) at 10 FQHCs in an implementation science partnership network for cancer control equity to understand how they operationalized and addressed health equity. We performed rapid qualitative analysis and shared findings with a larger group of 13 community health centers (including the 10 FQHCs) at an Implementation Learning Community (ILC) to identify action areas for research and practice, followed by a second phase of synthesizing qualitative codes into themes and mapping themes onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations. Participants defined health equity as central to the mission of FQHCs, and identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. These findings resonated with ILC participants who emphasized the challenge of addressing root cause social determinants of inequities using limited available resources in FQHCs and the importance of developing meaningful collaboration with communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership. Themes captured recommendations to advance health equity in daily work at FQHCs, including investments in staffing, training, and resources. Mapping qualitative themes from health equity-centered interviews with FQHC partners onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions aimed at improving health and healthcare equity.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts

BACKGROUND

Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI.

METHODS

Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation.

DISCUSSION

This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network

Background

A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts.

Methods

HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019-2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains.

Results

Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars.

Conclusions

Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers' efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science

BACKGROUND

Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.

METHODS

The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.

RESULTS

The initial logic model for ISC3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.