Video versus audio telehealth in safety net clinic patients: Changes by rurality and time.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the mix of video versus audio telehealth modality is critical to informing care for low-income safety net clinic patients. Our study examined whether telehealth modality and continued use of telehealth varied by rurality and whether that changed over time. METHODS: Encounters from adults in the OCHIN national network of primary care safety net clinics were identified by encounter type (in-person vs telehealth) and telehealth modality (video vs audio) from 4/1/2021 to 3/31/2023. Our main outcome was an interaction between patient rurality (defined using Rural Urban Commuting Area codes) and time. Linear probability models with clinic fixed effects were used to estimate predicted probabilities. RESULTS: The predicted probability of a telehealth visit decreased from 37.9% to 24.7% among urban patients (P <.001) and remained stable (29.5%-29.8%; P = .82) among patients in small rural areas. By March 2023, telehealth use among patients in small rural areas was 5.1 percentage points higher than among urban patients (P = .02). The predicted probability of an audio-only visit ranged from 63.5% to 70.5% for patients across all levels of rurality, but no significant differences by rurality or time were found. CONCLUSIONS: Safety net clinic patients were more likely to use audio-only than video telehealth visits. Telehealth in urban and large rural areas decreased since the first year of the pandemic. By the end of the study, patients in small rural communities used significantly more telehealth than urban patients. Elimination of reimbursement for audio telehealth visits may exacerbate existing health care inequities.

Co-created improvement goals and strategies for implementing SBIRT and MAUD in primary care settings in a facilitator-supported, tailored implementation study.

Evidence-based approaches to screening and treatment for unhealthy alcohol use have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality but are currently underutilized in primary care settings. To support implementation of screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD) by identifying goals co-developed by clinics and practice facilitators in a flexible implementation study. In a pragmatic implementation study, we used practice facilitation to support the implementation of SBIRT and MAUD in 48 clinical practices across Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. Our study used a tailored approach, in which facilitators and clinics co-identified implementation goals based on clinic needs. We used clinic contact logs, individual interviews, group periodic reflections with practice facilitators, and exit interviews with clinic staff to inform qualitative analysis. With support from practice facilitators, clinics identified goals spanning SBIRT, MAUD, reporting, targeted patient outreach, and quality improvement capacity. Goals addressed both the technical (e.g. data tracking) and social (e.g. staff training) aspects of SBIRT and MAUD. A decision tree summarizes emergent findings into a tool to support future implementation of SBIRT in primary care settings. A facilitator-supported, tailored approach to SBIRT implementation enabled clinics to identify a variety of goals to improve SBIRT and MAUD implementation. These identified priorities, along with a decision tree describing the hierarchical structure of these goals, could support future implementation efforts.

Evidence shows that certain approaches to screening and treating unhealthy alcohol use, such as screening, brief, intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) and medication-assisted treatment for alcohol use disorder (MAUD), can improve health outcomes. However, these practices are not used widely enough in primary care settings. Practice facilitators­professionals who support clinical practice change­can help clinics improve how they provide care. Our study used a flexible model in which practice facilitators and clinics worked together to identify goals for improving SBIRT and MAUD. We interviewed clinic staff and facilitators and made note of clinic communications to identify goals and the experience of clinic partners and facilitators. Identified goals included SBIRT, MAUD, reporting, targeted patient outreach, and quality improvement capacity. The facilitator-supported, tailored implementation model allowed for flexibility to meet clinic needs, but this flexibility sometimes led to confusion. Involvement of experienced facilitators and mentoring opportunities for novice staff is recommended for future studies utilizing this approach.

Identifying virtual care modality in electronic health record data.

Background: Virtual care increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The specific modality of virtual care (video, audio, eVisits, eConsults, and remote patient monitoring) has important implications for the accessibility and quality of care, but rates of use are relatively unknown. Methods for identifying virtual care modalities, especially in electronic health records (EHR) are inconsistent. This study (a) developed a method to identify virtual care modalities using EHR data and (b) described the distribution of these modalities over a 3-year study period. Methods: EHR data from 316 primary care safety net clinics throughout the study period (4/1/2020-3/31/2023) were included. Visit type (in-person vs virtual) by adults >18 years old were classified. Expert consultation informed the development of two algorithms to classify virtual care visit modalities; these algorithms prioritized different EHR data elements. We conducted descriptive analyses comparing algorithms and the frequency of virtual care modalities. Results: Agreement between the algorithms was 96.5% for all visits and 89.3% for virtual care visits. The majority of disagreement between the algorithms was among encounters scheduled as audio-only but billed as a video visit. Restricting to visits where the algorithms agreed on visit modality, there were 2-fold more audio-only than video visits. Conclusion: Visit modality classification varies depending upon which data in the EHR are prioritized. Regardless of which algorithm is utilized, safety net clinics rely on audio-only and video visits to provide care in virtual visits. Elimination of reimbursement for audio visits may exacerbate existing inequities in care for low-income patients.

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.

Engaging with Rural Communities for Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Using Modified Boot Camp Translation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents and Medicaid enrollees. OBJECTIVES: To address disparities, we used a modified community engagement approach, Boot Camp Translation (BCT). Research partners, an advisory board, and the rural community informed messaging about CRC outreach and a mailed fecal immunochemical test program. METHODS: Eligible rural patients (English-speaking and ages 50-74) and clinic staff involved in patient outreach participated in a BCT conducted virtually over two months. We applied qualitative analysis to BCT transcripts and field notes. RESULTS: Key themes included: the importance of directly communicating about the seriousness of cancer, leveraging close clinic-patient relationships, and communicating the test safety, ease, and low cost. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified version of BCT delivered in a virtual format, we were able to successfully capture community input to adapt a CRC outreach program for use in rural settings. Program materials will be tested during a pragmatic trial to address rural CRC screening disparities.

Protocol for an interview-based method for mapping mental models using causal-loop diagramming and realist interviewing.

Causal-loop diagramming, a method from system dynamics, is increasingly used in evaluation to describe individuals' understanding of how policies or programs do or could work ("mental models"). The use of qualitative interviews to inform model development is common, but guidance for how to design and conduct these interviews to elicit causal information in participant mental models is scant. A key strength of semi-structured qualitative interviews is that they let participants speak freely; they are not, however, designed to elicit causal information. Moreover, much of human communication about mental models-particularly larger causal structures such as feedback loops-is implicit. In qualitative research, part of the skill and art of effective interviewing and analysis involves listening for information that is expressed implicitly. Similarly, a skilled facilitator can recognize and inquire about implied causal structures, as is commonly done in group model building. To standardize and make accessible these approaches, we have formalized a protocol for designing and conducting semi-structured interviews tailored to eliciting mental models using causal-loop diagramming. We build on qualitative research methods, system dynamics, and realist interviewing. This novel, integrative method is designed to increase transparency and rigor in the use of interviews for system dynamics and has a variety of potential applications.

Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings. METHODS: SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up. DISCUSSION: 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 ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes. FINDINGS: We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift. CONCLUSIONS: These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

"It's Like Finding Your Way Through the Labyrinth": a Qualitative Study of Veterans' Experiences Accessing Healthcare.

BACKGROUND: The 2014 Veterans Choice Act and subsequent 2018 Veteran's Affairs (VA) Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act (MISSION Act) are legislation which clarified Veteran access to healthcare provided by non-VA clinicians (community care). These policies are of particular importance to Veterans living in rural areas, who tend to live farther from VA medical facilities than urban Veterans. OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans' experiences of the MISSION Act and how it impacted their access to primary care to inform future interventions with a focus on reaching rural Veterans. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design. PARTICIPANTS: United States (US) Veterans in Northwestern states engaged in VA and/or community care. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of Veterans between August 2020 and September 2021. Interview domains focused on barriers and facilitators of healthcare access. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 28 Veterans; 52% utilized community care as their primary source of care and 36% were from rural or frontier areas. Three main themes emerged: (1) Veterans described their healthcare experiences as positive but also frustrating (billing and prior authorization were noted as top frustrations); (2) Veterans with medical complexities, living far from healthcare services, and/or seeking women's healthcare services experienced additional frustration due to increased touch points with VA systems and processes; and (3) financial resources and/or knowledge of the VA system insulated Veterans from frustration with healthcare navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite provisions in the MISSION Act, Veteran participants described persistent barriers to healthcare access. Patient characteristics that required increased interaction with VA processes exacerbated these barriers, while financial resources and VA system knowledge mitigated them. Interventions to improve care coordination or address access barriers across VA and community care settings could improve access and reduce health inequities for Veterans-especially those with medical complexities, those living far from healthcare services, or those seeking women's healthcare.

System dynamics modeling for cancer prevention and control: A systematic review.

Cancer prevention and control requires consideration of complex interactions between multilevel factors. System dynamics modeling, which consists of diagramming and simulation approaches for understanding and managing such complexity, is being increasingly applied to cancer prevention and control, but the breadth, characteristics, and quality of these studies is not known. We searched PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycInfo, and eight peer-reviewed journals to identify cancer-related studies that used system dynamics modeling. A dual review process was used to determine eligibility. Included studies were assessed using quality criteria adapted from prior literature and mapped onto the cancer control continuum. Characteristics of studies and models were abstracted and qualitatively synthesized. 32 studies met our inclusion criteria. A mix of simulation and diagramming approaches were used to address diverse topics, including chemotherapy treatments (16%), interventions to reduce tobacco or e-cigarettes use (16%), and cancer risk from environmental contamination (13%). Models spanned all focus areas of the cancer control continuum, with treatment (44%), prevention (34%), and detection (31%) being the most common. The quality assessment of studies was low, particularly for simulation approaches. Diagramming-only studies more often used participatory approaches. Involvement of participants, description of model development processes, and proper calibration and validation of models showed the greatest room for improvement. System dynamics modeling can illustrate complex interactions and help identify potential interventions across the cancer control continuum. Prior efforts have been hampered by a lack of rigor and transparency regarding model development and testing. Supportive infrastructure for increasing awareness, accessibility, and further development of best practices of system dynamics for multidisciplinary cancer research is needed.

Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening rates, yet little is known about how to optimize these programs for effectiveness and cost. METHODS: PROMPT was a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of mailed FIT outreach. Participants in the standard condition were mailed a FIT and received live telephone reminders to return it. Participants in the enhanced condition also received a tailored advance notification (text message or live phone call) and two automated phone call reminders. The primary outcome was 6-month FIT completion; secondary outcomes were any colorectal cancer screening completion at 6 months, implementation, and program costs. RESULTS: The study included 27,585 participants (80% ages 50-64, 82% Hispanic/Latino; 68% preferred Spanish). A higher proportion of enhanced participants completed FIT at 6 months than standard participants, both in intention-to-treat [+2.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI; 0.4-5.2)] and per-protocol [limited to individuals who were reached; +16.9%, 95% CI (12.3-20.3)] analyses. Text messages and automated calls were successfully delivered to 91% to 100% of participants. The per-patient cost for standard mailed FIT was $10.84. The enhanced program's text message plus automated call reminder cost an additional $0.66; live phone calls plus an automated call reminder cost an additional $10.82 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Adding advance notifications and automated calls to a standard mailed FIT program boosted 6-month FIT completion rates at a small additional per-patient cost. IMPACT: Enhancements to mailed FIT outreach can improve colorectal cancer screening participation. Future research might test the addition of educational video messaging for screening-naïve adults.

Impact of the COVID-19 vaccination mandate on the primary care workforce and differences between rural and urban settings to inform future policy decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the impact of mandated vaccination policies on the primary care clinic workforce in the United States or differences between rural and urban settings, especially for COVID-19. With the continued pandemic and an anticipated increase in novel disease outbreaks and emerging vaccines, healthcare systems need additional information on how vaccine mandates impact the healthcare workforce to aid in future decision-making. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Oregon primary care clinic staff between October 28, 2021- November 18, 2021, following implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for healthcare personnel. The survey consisted of 19 questions that assessed the clinic-level impacts of the vaccination mandate. Outcomes included job loss among staff, receipt of an approved vaccination waiver, new vaccination among staff, and the perceived significance of the policy on clinic staffing. We used univariable descriptive statistics to compare outcomes between rural and urban clinics. The survey also included three open-ended questions that were analyzed using a template analysis approach. RESULTS: Staff from 80 clinics across 28 counties completed surveys, representing 38 rural and 42 urban clinics. Clinics reported job loss (46%), use of vaccination waivers (51%), and newly vaccinated staff (60%). Significantly more rural clinics (compared to urban) utilized medical and/or religious vaccination waivers (71% vs 33%, p = 0.04) and reported significant impact on clinic staffing (45% vs 21%, p = 0.048). There was also a non-significant trend toward more job loss for rural compared to urban clinics (53% vs. 41%, p = 0.547). Qualitative analysis highlighted a decline in clinic morale, small but meaningful detriments to patient care, and mixed opinions of the vaccination mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon's COVID-19 vaccination mandate increased healthcare personnel vaccination rates, yet amplified staffing challenges with disproportionate impacts in rural areas. Staffing impacts in primary care clinics were greater than reported previously in hospital settings and with other vaccination mandates. Mitigating primary care staffing impacts, particularly in rural areas, will be critical in response to the continued pandemic and novel viruses in the future.

Jumping Through Hoops: Community Care Clinician and Staff Experiences Providing Primary Care to Rural Veterans.

BACKGROUND: The 2019 VA Maintaining Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks Act, or MISSION Act, aimed to improve rural veteran access to care by expanding coverage for services in the community. Increased access to clinicians outside the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) could benefit rural veterans, who often face obstacles obtaining VA care. This solution, however, relies on clinics willing to navigate VA administrative processes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the experiences rural, non-VA clinicians and staff have while providing care to rural veterans and inform challenges and opportunities for high-quality, equitable care access and delivery. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Non-VA-affiliated primary care clinicians and staff in the Pacific Northwest. APPROACH: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eligible clinicians and staff between May and August 2020; data analyzed using thematic analysis. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 13 clinicians and staff and identified four themes and multiple challenges related to providing care for rural veterans: (1) Confusion, variability and delays for VA administrative processes, (2) clarifying responsibility for dual-user veteran care, (3) accessing and sharing medical records outside the VA, and (4) negotiating communication pathways between systems and clinicians. Informants reported using workarounds to combat challenges, including using trial and error to gain expertise in VA system navigation, relying on veterans to act as intermediaries to coordinate their care, and depending on individual VA employees to support provider-to-provider communication and share system knowledge. Informants expressed concerns that dual-user veterans were more likely to have duplication or gaps in services. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the need to reduce the bureaucratic burden of interacting with the VA. Further work is needed to tailor structures to address challenges rural community providers experience and to identify strategies to reduce care fragmentation across VA and non-VA providers and encourage long-term commitment to care for veterans.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative.

BACKGROUND: Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative. METHODS: We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation. RESULTS: ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents despite the availability of effective screening methods. Outreach activities can improve CRC screening rates but rely on accurate identification of patients due for screening. We report on data challenges in rural clinics and Medicaid health plans in Oregon in identifying patients eligible for CRC screening, in a large project implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and patient navigation. METHODS: We analyzed data from clinic intake surveys and administrative claims. Clinics were asked to identify total population numbers relevant to CRC screening and follow-up. Health plans also identified enrollees eligible for CRC screening in Spring, 2021. Clinic staff validated patient lists for eligibility using their electronic health records (EHR). RESULTS: EHR features varied across the 29 participating and 28 responding clinics. Among the 28 responding clinics, 21 were able to report their Medicaid population (75%), 19 reported the number of patients aged 50 to 75 (68%) and the number screened for CRC in the last year (68%). Only 8 (29%) were able to report screening details such as number screened by FIT and 9 were able to report on patients with an abnormal FIT or colonoscopy completed after FIT (32%). Health plans had challenges properly identifying where enrollees received care and had missing data for race and ethnicity (range 22 to 34% unknown race, <1% to 24% unknown ethnicity). DISCUSSION: Most participating rural primary care clinics and Medicaid health plans experienced challenges identifying the population due for a CRC screening outreach program. Better EHR functionality and data reporting capabilities could help rural clinics apply population-based strategies and ultimately attenuate disparities in cancer screening and follow-up.

Improving colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care: Preliminary effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative mailed fecal immunochemical test pilot.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates. We piloted a collaborative mailed FIT program with health plans and rural clinics to evaluate preliminary effectiveness and refine implementation strategies. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm study using a convergent, parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the implementation of a collaborative mailed FIT program. Enrollees were identified using health plan claims and confirmed via clinic scrub. The intervention included a vendor-delivered automated phone call (auto-call) prompt, FIT mailing, and reminder auto-call; clinics were encouraged to make live reminder calls. Practice facilitation was the primary implementation strategy. At 12 months post mailing, we assessed the rates of: (1) mailed FIT return and (2) completion of any CRC screening. We took fieldnotes and conducted postintervention key informant interviews to assess implementation outcomes (eg, feasibility, acceptability, and adaptations). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine Medicaid or Medicare enrollees were mailed a FIT. Over the 12-month intervention, 62 participants (37%) completed screening of which 21% completed the mailed FIT (most were returned within 3 months), and 15% screened by other methods (FITs distributed in-clinic, colonoscopy). Enrollee demographics and the reminder call may encourage mailed FIT completion. Program feasibility and acceptability was high and supported by perceived positive benefit, alignment with existing workflows, adequate staffing, and practice facilitation. CONCLUSION: Collaborative health plan-clinic mailed FIT programs are feasible and acceptable for implementation in rural clinics and support CRC screening completion. Studies that pragmatically test collaborative approaches to mailed FIT and patient navigation follow-up after abnormal FIT and support broad scale-up in rural settings are needed.

Primary Care Research Is Hard to Do During COVID-19: Challenges and Solutions.

Conducting research in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic is hard, due to baseline stresses on primary care, which have been compounded by the pandemic. We acknowledge and validate primary care researchers' frustrations. Using our experience on over 15 individual projects during the pandemic we identify 3 key challenges to conducting primary care research: (1) practice delivery trickle-down effects, (2) limited/changing resources and procedures for research, and (3) a generally tense milieu in US society during the pandemic. We present strategies, informed by a set of questions, to help researchers decide how to address these challenges observed during our studies. In order to overcome and grow from these challenging times we encourage normalization and self-compassion, and encourage researchers and funders to embrace pragmatic and adaptive research designs as the circumstances with COVID-19 evolve over time.