Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

Money Matters: A Three-Step Process for Using Budget Data in Program Evaluation to Assess the Design and Management of a Novel Public Health Program.

We applied a three-step process, abstracting and analyzing program budgets to examine how Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) awardees are structuring their programs and to assess the fidelity of program design to the CRCCP public health model. We reviewed 23 state, one tribal organization, and six university awardee budgets. We assessed resource allocations, staffing structures, and contracted partners and their activities. Awardees allocated 83% of all funds to contracts and personnel. Program managers were the most budgeted personnel type across three measures: number of people, full-time equivalency, and personnel costs. Awardees not only contracted with health care systems and clinics (39% of all contracts) but also contracted other partner types. Contractors were mainly funded to implement evidence-based interventions (25%) and conduct evaluation (24%). Program design varied among awardees in the number of staff (0-22), number of full-time equivalencies (0-5.4), and the number of contracts (1-11) budgeted. State awardees budgeted more resources to contracts, compared with university awardees (57% vs. 31%), while universities budgeted more for total personnel costs (41% vs. 30%). We learned that awardees designed their programs with fidelity to the CRCCP model. Although implementation approaches varied, overall results suggest implementation requires a combination of internal capacities and contracted partners. Budgets provide opportunities to use already existing program data to evaluate program design, partnerships, and planned activities.

Factors That Support Sustainability of Health Systems Change to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. RESULTS: Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

Evaluating Uptake of Evidence-Based Interventions in 355 Clinics Partnering With the Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2015-2018.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers). EVALUATION METHODS: Clinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs. RESULTS: In our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Clinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions.

Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics.

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Geographic Examination of COVID-19 Test Percent Positivity and Proportional Change in Cancer Screening Volume, National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to significant declines in cancer screening, including among women served by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). This study examined the spatial association between state-based COVID-19 test percent positivity and proportional change in NBCCEDP screening volume. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 Diagnostic Laboratory Testing dataset, we calculated state-based monthly COVID-19 test percent positivity from July through December 2020 and categorized rates into low, medium, and high groups. We used data from 48 NBCCEDP state awardees to calculate the state-based monthly proportional change in screening volume and compared data for July-December 2020 with the previous 5-year average for those months. We categorized changes in screening volume into large decrease, medium decrease, and minimal change and created maps of the associations between variable subgroups by using bivariate mapping in QGIS. RESULTS: Bivariate relationships between COVID-19 test percent positivity and proportional change in cancer screening volume varied over time and geography. In 5 of 6 months, 4 states had high COVID-19 test percent positivity and minimal change in breast or cervical cancer screening volume; 2 states had high COVID-19 test percent positivity and minimal change in breast and cervical cancer screening volume. CONCLUSION: Some states maintained pre-COVID-19 screening volumes despite high COVID-19 test percent positivity. Follow-up research will be conducted to determine how these states differ from those with consistent decreases in screening volume and identify factors that may have contributed to differences. This information could be useful for planning to maximize NBCCEDP awardees' ability to maintain screening volume during future public health emergencies.

Characterizing clinics with differential changes in the screening rate in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funds the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in primary care clinics by implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). This study examined differences in clinic characteristics and implementation efforts among clinics with differential changes in screening rates over time. METHODS: CRCCP clinic data collected by the CDC were used. The outcome was the clinic status (highest quartile [Q4] vs lowest quartile [Q1]), which was based on the absolute screening rate change between the first and second program years. Five clinic characteristic variables and 12 clinic-level CRCCP variables (eg, EBIs) were assessed in bivariable analyses, and logistic regression was used to determine significant predictors of the outcome. RESULTS: Each group included 78 clinics (N = 156). Clinics with a Q4 status saw a 14.9 percentage point increase in the screening rate, whereas clinics with a Q1 status experienced a 9.1 percentage point decline. Q4s were more likely than Q1s to have a CRC champion, implement 4 EBIs versus fewer EBIs, implement at least 1 new EBI, and increase the number of implemented EBIs. The adjusted odds of Q4 status were 5.3 times greater (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-14.9) if a clinic implemented an additional EBI. The adjusted odds of Q4 status increased to 7.1 (95% CI, 2.2-23.1) if a clinic implemented 2 to 4 additional EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing new EBIs or enhancing existing ones improves CRC screening rates. Additionally, clinics with lower screening rates had greater rate increases and may have benefited more from the CRCCP.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky.

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and cost of patient incentives, together with patient navigation and patient reminders, to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates and colorectal cancer screening uptake in one federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Appalachia. This FQHC is a designated homeless clinic, as 79.7% of its patient population are homeless. We collected process, outcome, and cost data from the FQHC for two time periods: usual care (September 2016-August 2017) and implementation (September 2017-September 2018). We reported the FIT kit return rate, the increase in return rate, and the additional number of individual screens. We also calculated the incremental cost per additional screen. The patient incentive program, with patient navigation and patient reminders, increased the number of FIT kits returned from the usual care period to the implementation period. The return rate increased by 25.9 percentage points (from 21.7% to 47.6%) with an additional 91 people screened at an incremental cost of $134.61 per screen. A patient incentive program, together with the assistance of patient navigators and supplemented with patient reminders, can help improve CRC screening uptake among vulnerable and homeless populations.

Cost-effectiveness of a patient navigation intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in New Hampshire.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the most widely used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening test in the United States. Through the detection and removal of potentially precancerous polyps, it can prevent CRC. However, CRC screening remains low among adults who are recommended for screening. The New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program implemented a patient navigation (PN) intervention to increase colonoscopy screening among low-income patients in health centers in New Hampshire. In the current study, the authors examined the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: A decision tree model was constructed using Markov state transitions to calculate the costs and effectiveness associated with PN. Costs were calculated for the implementation of PN in a statewide public health program and in endoscopy centers. The main study outcome was colonoscopy screening completion. The main decision variable was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the PN intervention compared with usual care. RESULTS: The average cost per screening with PN was $1089 (95% confidence interval, $1075-$1103) compared with $894 with usual care (95% confidence interval, $886-$908). Among patients who were navigated, approximately 96.2% completed colonoscopy screening compared with 69.3% of those receiving usual care (odds ratio, 11.2; P <. 001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that 1 additional screening completion cost approximately $725 in a public health program and $548 in an endoscopy center with PN compared with usual care, both of which are less than the average Medicare reimbursement of $737 for a colonoscopy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: PN was found to be cost-effective in increasing colonoscopy screening among low-income adults in the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, even at the threshold of current Medicare reimbursement rates for colonoscopy. The results of the current study support the implementation of PN in statewide public health programs and endoscopy centers.

Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation for breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.

OBJECTIVES: Patient navigation (PN) services have been shown to improve cancer screening in disparate populations. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of implementing PN services within the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). METHODS: We adapted a breast cancer simulation model to estimate a population cohort of women aged 40-64 years from the NBCCEDP through their lifetime. We incorporated their screening frequency and screening and diagnostic costs. RESULTS: Within the NBCCEDP, Program with PN (vs. No PN) resulted in a greater number of mammograms per woman (4.23 vs. 4.14), lower lifetime mortality from breast cancer (3.53% vs. 3.61%), and fewer missed diagnostic resolution per woman (0.017 vs. 0.025). The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for a Program with PN was $32,531 per quality-adjusted life-years relative to Program with No PN. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating PN services within the NBCCEDP may be a cost-effective way of improving adherence to screening and diagnostic resolution for women who have abnormal results from screening mammography. Our study highlights the value of supportive services such as PN in improving the quality of care offered within the NBCCEDP.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory.

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

Correlates of colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care clinics serving low income, medically underserved populations.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC burden. Primary care clinics have an important role in increasing screening. We investigated associations between clinic-level CRC screening rates of the clinics serving low income, medically underserved population, and clinic-level screening interventions, clinic characteristics and community contexts. METHODS: Using data (2015-16) from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Colorectal Cancer Control Program, we linked clinic-level data with county-level contextual data from external sources. Analysis variables included clinic-level CRC screening rates, four different evidence-based interventions (EBIs) intended to increase screening, clinic characteristics, and clinic contexts. In the analysis (2018), we used weighted ordinary least square multiple regression analyses to associate EBIs and other covariates with clinic-level screening rates. RESULTS: Clinics (N = 581) had an average screening rate of 36.3% (weighted. Client reminders had the highest association (5.6 percentage points) with screening rates followed by reducing structural barriers (4.9 percentage points), provider assessment and feedback (3.2 percentage points), and provider reminders (<1 percentage point). Increases in the number of EBIs was associated with steady increases in the screening rate (5.4 percentage points greater for one EBI). Screening rates were 16.4 percentage points higher in clinics with 4 EBIs vs. no EBI. Clinic characteristics, contexts (e.g. physician density), and context-EBI interactions were also associated with clinic screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: These results may help clinics, especially those serving low income, medically underserved populations, select individual or combinations of EBIs suitable to their contexts while considering costs.

Patient navigator reported patient barriers and delivered activities in two large federally-funded cancer screening programs.

Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.

Assessing the implementation of a patient navigation intervention for colonoscopy screening.

BACKGROUND: A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of the New Hampshire Colorectal Cancer Screening Program's (NHCRCSP) patient navigation (PN) program. The PN intervention was delivered by telephone with navigators following a rigorous, six-topic protocol to support low-income patients to complete colonoscopy screening. We applied the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework to examine implementation processes and consider potential scalability of this intervention. METHODS: A mixed-methods evaluation study was conducted including 1) a quasi-experimental, retrospective, comparison group study examining program effectiveness, 2) secondary analysis of NHCRCSP program data, and 3) a case study. Data for all navigated patients scheduled and notified of their colonoscopy test date between July 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 (N = 443) were analyzed. Researchers were provided in-depth call details for 50 patients randomly selected from the group of 443. The case study included review of program documents, observations of navigators, and interviews with 27 individuals including staff, patients, and other stakeholders. RESULTS: Program reach was state-wide, with navigators serving patients from across the state. The program successfully recruited patients from the intended priority population who met the established age, income, and insurance eligibility guidelines. Analysis of the 443 NHCRCSP patients navigated during the study period demonstrated effectiveness with 97.3% completing colonoscopy, zero missed appointments (no-shows), and 0.7% late cancellations. Trained and supervised nurse navigators spent an average of 124.3 min delivering the six-topic PN protocol to patients. Navigators benefited from a real-time data system that allowed for patient tracking, communication across team members, and documentation of service delivery. Evaluators identified several factors supporting program maintenance including consistent funding support from CDC, a strong program infrastructure, and partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Factors supporting implementation included funding for colonoscopies, use of registered nurses, a clinical champion, strong partnerships with primary care and endoscopy sites, fidelity to the PN protocol, significant intervention dose, and a real-time data system. Further study is needed to assess scalability to other locations.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Adoption and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Among Cancer Control Program Grantees, 2009-2015.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation. INTERVENTION APPROACH: CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates. EVALUATION METHODS: We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation. RESULTS: Most grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.