Identifying actionable strategies: using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)-informed interviews to evaluate the implementation of a multilevel intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening

Facilitators and barriers to implementing the Diabetes Prevention Program in rural church settings: A qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

PURPOSE

The CDC's Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, DPP implementation in rural areas is limited. This study sought to address this gap by implementing DPP in rural church settings through a community-academic partnership and identifying implementation facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional qualitative study. Semistructured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) assessed church leaders' and lifestyle coaches' perceptions of implementing DPP in rural churches. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes through an inductive approach; then, these emergent themes were deductively linked to CFIR constructs. COREQ guidelines were used to report study findings.

FINDINGS

Twenty-five stakeholders participated. Facilitators to implementing DPP included its evidence-based effectiveness in preventing T2D, as well as support from the academic partner in terms of funding, training, and communication. Additionally, DPP's alignment with community needs, along with the active engagement of pastors in participant recruitment, supported implementation. Several barriers hindered DPP implementation, including transportation and childcare issues, as well as program participants' medical conditions/disabilities limiting their participation. Furthermore, rural residents' reluctance to adopt lifestyle changes and loyalty to family churches posed challenges to their engagement in DPP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified contextual factors influencing DPP implementation in rural communities. Findings highlight the importance of tailored strategies that leverage facilitators while proactively addressing barriers, including rural residents' reluctance to attend programs outside their church, resistance to lifestyle changes, and transportation issues to ensure successful DPP implementation in rural areas.

Hiding in plain sight: Cooperative Extension as an underutilized approach to improving cancer survivorship outcomes in underserved populations

PURPOSE

Explore the potential utility of a Cooperative Extension-specific program to support post-active treatment cancer survivors.

METHODS

A user-centered study was conducted to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of a program for adult cancer survivors living post primary cancer treatment ("cancer survivors") via Cooperative Extension ("Extension"), including interviews analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants included Cooperative Extension Educators and adult cancer survivors in Oklahoma who completed data collection from July 2023 to September 2023.

RESULTS

N = 20 participants were enrolled. Cancer survivors indicated poor familiarity with Extension, or a primary association with agriculture. Some voiced surprise Extension was not already providing cancer-related programming. Many expressed poor support in their communities due to issues secondary to rurality, often relying on non-cancer programs. Educators voiced a strong capability to deliver cancer-related programming if intentionally designed, with many already providing education on relevant topics (e.g., finances, nutrition, physical activity). A salient barrier was poor connectivity with the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an immense need for improved survivorship care in underserved communities due to poor social connectedness, support structures, and poor mental health. Cooperative Extension is well-poised to deliver cancer survivorship-specific programming.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cooperative Extension provides an extensive network of professionals who can provide support to cancer survivors, particularly those post-active treatment.

Effect of an Inflatable Colon on Colorectal Cancer Knowledge and Screening Intent Among Male Attendees at State Fairs in Two Midwestern States, 2023

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most-diagnosed cancer among men and women in the US. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of an interactive inflatable colon exhibit on CRC knowledge and screening intent among men attending state fairs in 2 midwestern states.

Methods

At the 2023 state fairs in 2 midwestern states, eligible participants (men aged 18-75 y who could speak and read English and resided in 1 of the 2 states) completed a presurvey, an unguided tour of the inflatable Super Colon, and a postsurvey. Primary outcomes were changes in knowledge (actual and perceived) and CRC screening intent from presurvey to postsurvey. We used χ2 tests to examine differences in survey results between the 2 sites and the association between demographic characteristics and behaviors (knowledge and intentions) before entering the Super Colon exhibit. We used the McNemar test to examine differences in presurvey to postsurvey distributions.

Results

The study sample (N = 940) comprised 572 men at site A (60.8%) and 368 men at site B (39.2%). Except for 1 question, baseline CRC knowledge was relatively high. Greater perceived knowledge was inversely associated with greater actual knowledge. After touring the Super Colon, participants improved their actual knowledge of CRC prevention and self-perceived CRC knowledge. Most participants (95.4%) agreed that the Super Colon was effective for teaching people about CRC.

Conclusion

These findings emphasize the role of community-based educational initiatives in encouraging CRC screening uptake and increasing research participation among men and affirm that the inflatable colon is as an effective educational tool for increasing CRC knowledge and encouraging early-detection screening behavior among men.

NHS cancer services and systems-ten pressure points a UK cancer control plan needs to address

In this Policy Review we discuss ten key pressure points in the NHS in the delivery of cancer care services that need to be urgently addressed by a comprehensive national cancer control plan. These pressure points cover areas such as increasing workforce capacity and its productivity, delivering effective cancer survivorship services, addressing variation in quality, fixing the reimbursement system for cancer care, and balancing of the cancer research agenda. These areas have been selected based on their relative importance to ensuring sustainable cancer services, persistence as key issues in the NHS, and their impact on delivering better and more equitable and affordable patient outcomes. Many of these pressure points are not acknowledged explicitly in any current discourse. The evidence we provide points to their impact on the ability to deliver world class cancer care, but also to their amenability to affordable solutions if given the relevant prioritisation and investment. The current narrative needs to move away from a technocentric approach to improving care, to one focused on understanding the complexity of cancer services and the wider health system to drive improvements in survival, quality of life, and experience for patients.

Barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening evidence-based interventions in federally qualified health centers: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to increase colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) uptake in Texas federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), which serve a predominantly vulnerable population with high demands. Empirical support exists for evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that are proven to increase CRCS; however, as with screening, their use remains low in FQHCs. This study aimed to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

We recruited employees involved in implementing CRCS EBIs (e.g., physicians) using data from a CDC-funded program to increase the CRCS in Texas FQHCs. Through 23 group interviews, we explored experiences with practice change, CRCS promotion and quality improvement initiatives, organizational readiness, the impact of COVID-19, and the use of CRCS EBIs (e.g., provider reminders). We used directed content analysis with CFIR constructs to identify the critical facilitators and barriers.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed six primary CFIR constructs that influence implementation: information technology infrastructure, innovation design, work infrastructure, performance measurement pressure, assessing needs, and available resources. Based on experiences with four recommended EBIs, participants described barriers, including data limitations of electronic health records and the design of reminder alerts targeted at deliverers and recipients of patient or provider reminders. Implementation facilitators include incentivized processes to increase provider assessment and feedback, existing clinic processes (e.g., screening referrals), and available resources to address patient needs (e.g., transportation). Staff buy-in emerged as an implementation facilitator, fostering a conducive environment for change within clinics.

CONCLUSIONS

Using CFIR, we identified barriers, such as the burden of technology infrastructure, and facilitators, such as staff buy-in. The results, which enhance our understanding of CRCS EBI implementation in FQHCs, provide insights into designing nuanced, practical implementation strategies to improve cancer control in a critical setting.

Adapting an equity-focused implementation process framework with a focus on ethnic health inequities in the Aotearoa New Zealand context

BACKGROUND

Health intervention implementation in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), as in many countries globally, usually varies by ethnicity. Māori (the Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa) and Pacific peoples are less likely to receive interventions than other ethnic groups, despite experiencing persistent health inequities. This study aimed to develop an equity-focused implementation framework, appropriate for the Aotearoa NZ context, to support the planning and delivery of equitable implementation pathways for health interventions, with the intention of achieving equitable outcomes for Māori, as well as people originating from the Pacific Islands.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature to identify existing equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks was undertaken. One of these, the Equity-based framework for Implementation Research (EquIR), was selected for adaptation. The adaptation process was undertaken in collaboration with the project's Māori and consumer advisory groups and informed by the expertise of local health equity researchers and stakeholders, as well as the international implementation science literature.

RESULTS

The adapted framework's foundation is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the written agreement between Māori rangatira (chiefs) and the British Crown), and its focus is whānau (extended family)-centred implementation that meets the health and wellbeing aspirations, priorities and needs of whānau. The implementation pathway comprises four main steps: implementation planning, pathway design, monitoring, and outcomes and evaluation, all with an equity focus. The pathway is underpinned by the core constructs of equitable implementation in Aotearoa NZ: collaborative design, anti-racism, Māori and priority population expertise, cultural safety and values-based. Additionally, the contextual factors impacting implementation, i.e. the social, economic, commercial and political determinants of health, are included.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework presented in this study is the first equity-focused process-type implementation framework to be adapted for the Aotearoa NZ context. This framework is intended to support and facilitate equity-focused implementation research and health intervention implementation by mainstream health services.

Population-Level Portal-Based Anxiety and Depression Screening Perspectives in HIV Care Clinicians: Qualitative Study Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

BACKGROUND

Depression and anxiety are common among people with HIV and are associated with inadequate viral suppression, disease progression, and increased mortality. However, depression and anxiety are underdiagnosed and undertreated in people with HIV owing to inadequate visit time and personnel availability. Conducting population-level depression and anxiety screening via the patient portal is a promising intervention that has not been studied in HIV care settings.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore facilitators of and barriers to implementing population-level portal-based depression and anxiety screening for people with HIV.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured hour-long qualitative interviews based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research with clinicians at an HIV clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 10 clinicians participated in interviews. In total, 10 facilitators and 7 barriers were identified across 5 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains. Facilitators included advantages of systematic screening outside clinic visits; the expectation that assessment frequency could be tailored to patient needs; evidence from the literature and previous experience in other settings; respect for patient privacy; empowering patients and facilitating communication about mental health; compatibility with clinic culture, workflows, and systems; staff beliefs about the importance of mental health screening and benefits for HIV care; engaging all clinic staff and leveraging their strengths; and clear planning and communication with staff. Barriers included difficulty in ensuring prompt response to suicidal ideation; patient access, experience, and comfort using the portal; limited availability of mental health services; variations in how providers use the electronic health record and communicate with patients; limited capacity to address mental health concerns during HIV visits; staff knowledge and self-efficacy regarding the management of mental health conditions; and the impersonal approach to a sensitive topic.

CONCLUSIONS

We proposed 13 strategies for implementing population-level portal-based screening for people with HIV. Before implementation, clinics can conduct local assessments of clinicians and clinic staff; engage clinicians and clinic staff with various roles and expertise to support the implementation; highlight advantages, relevance, and evidence for population-level portal-based mental health screening; make screening frequency adaptable based on patient history and symptoms; use user-centered design methods to refine results that are displayed and communicated in the electronic health record; make screening tools available for patients to use on demand in the portal; and create protocols for positive depression and anxiety screeners, including those indicating imminent risk. During implementation, clinics should communicate with clinicians and clinic staff and provide training on protocols; provide technical support and demonstrations for patients on how to use the portal; use multiple screening methods for broad reach; use patient-centered communication in portal messages; provide clinical decision support tools, training, and mentorship to help clinicians manage mental health concerns; and implement integrated behavioral health and increase mental health referral partnerships.

A scoping review of equity-focused implementation theories, models and frameworks in healthcare and their application in addressing ethnicity-related health inequities

BACKGROUND

Inequities in implementation contribute to the unequal benefit of health interventions between groups of people with differing levels of advantage in society. Implementation science theories, models and frameworks (TMFs) provide a theoretical basis for understanding the multi-level factors that influence implementation outcomes and are used to guide implementation processes. This study aimed to identify and analyse TMFs that have an equity focus or have been used to implement interventions in populations who experience ethnicity or 'race'-related health inequities.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify the relevant literature published from January 2011 to April 2022 by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL), the Dissemination and Implementation model database, hand-searching key journals and searching the reference lists and citations of studies that met the inclusion criteria. Titles, abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by at least two researchers. Data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, including the study characteristics, TMF description and operationalisation. TMFs were categorised as determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, process models and evaluation frameworks according to their overarching aim and described with respect to how equity and system-level factors influencing implementation were incorporated.

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 610 results, 70 of which were eligible for full-text review, and 18 met the inclusion criteria. A further eight publications were identified from additional sources. In total, 26 papers describing 15 TMFs and their operationalisation were included. Categorisation resulted in four determinant frameworks, one implementation theory, six process models and three evaluation frameworks. One framework included elements of determinant, process and evaluation TMFs and was therefore classified as a 'hybrid' framework. TMFs varied in their equity and systems focus. Twelve TMFs had an equity focus and three were established TMFs applied in an equity context. All TMFs at least partially considered systems-level factors, with five fully considering macro-, meso- and micro-level influences on equity and implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identifies and summarises the implementation science TMFs available to support equity-focused implementation. This review may be used as a resource to guide TMF selection and illustrate how TMFs have been utilised in equity-focused implementation activities.

Implementation of a novel program to support colorectal cancer screening in a community health center consortium before and after the onset of COVID-19: a qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives

BACKGROUND

In 2017, the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) established the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Program to provide technical assistance and financial support to improve CRC screening processes, and outcomes in a consortium of community health centers (CHCs) serving low-income communities in San Francisco. The purpose of this study was twofold: to evaluate the perceived influence of the support provided by the CRC Screening Program's Task Force on CRC screening processes and outcomes in these settings and to identify facilitators and barriers to SF CAN-supported CRC screening activities before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Semi-structured key informant interviews were conducted with consortium leaders, medical directors, quality improvement team members, and clinic screening champions. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and analyzed for themes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to develop the interview questions and organize the analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were interviewed. The most commonly cited facilitators of improved screening processes included the expertise, funding, screening resources, regular follow-up, and sustained engagement with clinic leaders provided by the task force. The most salient barriers identified were patient characteristics, such as housing instability; staffing challenges, such as being understaffed and experiencing high staff turnover; and clinic-level challenges, such as lack of ability to implement and sustain formalized patient navigation strategies, and changes in clinic priorities due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other competing health care priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing CRC screening programs in a consortium of CHCs is inherently challenging. Technical assistance from the Task Force was viewed positively and helped to mitigate challenges both before and during the pandemic. Future research should explore opportunities to increase the robustness of technical assistance offered by groups such as SF CAN to support cancer screening activities in CHCs serving low-income communities.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes.

RESULTS

Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles.

CONCLUSIONS

Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies

BACKGROUND

With a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants.

METHODS

A systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis.

DISCUSSION

With its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42022306580).

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.

Improving Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates: A Colorectal Cancer Screening Quality Improvement Project in a Multisite Federally Qualified Health Center

The goal of this quality improvement project was to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in a multicenter federally qualified health center (FQHC) within the Central Appalachian region of rural, southwestern Virginia. Guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle, the objectives were to (1) evaluate implementation processes and effectiveness of an automated electronic medical record patient reminder system to promote fecal immunochemical test (FIT) completion, compared with live telephone reminders delivered by a care coordinator (i.e., usual care), and (2) explore staff perceptions related to improving CRC screening rates. In total, 119 FITs were distributed with 59 assigned to usual care and 60 to the automated groups. In the usual care group, 79% patients with completed protocol returned their FIT; 9% were positive. In the automated reminder group, 76% patients with completed protocol returned their FIT; 10% were positive. There was no significant difference in the number of contacts per patients between the usual care (2.0, SD = 0.82 contacts/patient) and automated (1.8, SD = 0.98 contacts/patient) groups (p = .248). In total, the usual care and automated groups required 56 and 17 live calls, respectively. Overall, FQHC system-wide CRC screening rates increase from 30.5% to 47.3%. Ten staff interviews revealed perceptions of CRC screening, the QI project, and organizational change processes that may inform future cancer control projects. Researcher and practitioners should consider PDSA quality improvement projects as an initial step to build capacity and improve CRC screening rates, especially when working in FQHC with limited resources to engage in large complex research projects.

Clinicians' perceptions of barriers to cervical cancer screening for women living with behavioral health conditions: a focus group study

Background

Women with behavioral health (BH) conditions (e.g., mental illness and substance abuse) receive fewer cervical cancer (CC) screenings, are diagnosed at more advanced cancer stages, and are less likely to receive specialized treatments. The aim of this study was to identify barriers that healthcare providers face in providing CC screening to women with BH conditions.

Methods

Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we conducted four focus groups in North Florida with 26 primary care and BH clinicians and staff to examine perceived barriers to CC screening among their patients with BH conditions to guide the future development of a tailored cervical cancer screening and follow-up intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyze verbatim transcripts from audiotaped focus groups.

Results

Three main themes of barriers emerged from the data: 1) BH conditions related barriers included a history of trauma, stigma and discrimination, and uncontrolled comorbid conditions, 2) System level barriers related to lack of integration between BH and primary care, and 3) Similar barriers to the general population including lack of health insurance, insufficient processes to send out reminders, and challenges with communicating with patients.

Conclusions

Tailored CC screening interventions that address the unique needs of women with BH conditions are needed. Strategies that address improving trust between patients and healthcare providers, identifying avenues to improve receipt of screening during time-limited clinical visits, connecting BH and primary care providers, and addressing the social determinants of health have potential to improve CC screening rates for women with BH conditions.