Substance use and help seeking as coping behaviors among parents and unpaid caregivers of adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, caregiving responsibilities may have been associated with increased substance use.Objectives: To characterize substance use to cope with stress and willingness to seek help among (i) parents, (ii) unpaid caregivers of adults, and (iii) parent-caregivers.Methods: Data were analyzed for 10,444 non-probabilistic internet-based survey respondents of the COVID-19 Outbreak Public Evaluation (COPE) initiative (5227 females, 5217 males). Questions included new or increased substance use, substance use in the past 30 days to cope, insomnia, mental health, and willingness to seek help.Results: Nearly 20% of parents and unpaid caregivers of adults each reported new or increased use of substances to cope with stress or emotions; 65.4% of parent-caregivers endorsed this response. Compared to non-caregivers, all caregiver groups had higher odds of new or increased use of substances, with parent-caregivers showing the largest effect size (aOR: 7.19 (5.87-8.83), p < .001). Parent-caregivers had four times the adjusted odds of using drugs other than cannabis (aOR: 4.01 (3.15-5.09), p < .001) compared to non-caregivers.Conclusions: Caregivers may initiate or increase substance use as a coping strategy when under stress. The higher odds of substance use underscores the importance of efforts to screen for sleep disturbances and adverse mental health symptoms, particularly among parent-caregivers. Clinicians may consider asking patients about family situations more broadly to help identify people who may be experiencing stress related to caregiving and, if indicated, offer treatment to potentially alleviate some of the risks.

Engaging Community Health Workers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19 Public Health Response to Address Health Disparities and Build Community Resilience.

In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) funded community health workers (CHWs) for COVID Response and Resilient Communities (CCR). CCR is a 3-year, $350 million initiative to implement CHW strategies aimed at reducing COVID-19 impacts, building resilience, and improving health equity by addressing health-related social needs. This paper describes the CCR initiative and experiences to date, underscoring CHWs' critical role in CDC's pandemic response. CCR funds 67 recipients to reach communities who are disproportionately affected by long-standing health disparities (hereafter, priority populations). CCR aims to decrease the impact of COVID-19 and increase community resilience to respond to COVID-19 and future public health emergencies. Recipients implement three strategies: train CHWs to support the COVID-19 response, increase the workforce of CHWs to manage the spread of the disease, and improve utilization of community and clinical resources to engage CHWs to help strengthen communities' resilience to mitigate the impact of COVID-19. We funded three additional organizations to provide technical assistance to CCR recipients and collaborate with us on a national evaluation of the program. CCR recipients hired about 950 CHWs and integrated these CHWs into over 1,000 organizations and care teams. At the end of the second program year, CHWs made over 250,000 referrals to social services and over 150,000 referrals to address specific health conditions. CCR demonstrates that CHWs can be quickly mobilized to participate in a public health emergency and reach those most affected by COVID-19.

Diving deeper into distress screening implementation in oncology care.

BACKGROUND: Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. RESULTS: Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. CONCLUSIONS: Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care.

Evaluating the sustainability of patient navigation programs in oncology by length of existence, funding, and payment model participation.

BACKGROUND: For this study, the authors examined whether specific programmatic factors were associated with the sustainability of patient navigation programs. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey explored navigation programmatic factors associated with 3 measures of sustainability: 1) length of program existence, 2) reliance on sustainable funding, and 3) participation in alternative payment models. In total, 750 patient navigators or program administrators affiliated with oncology navigation programs in clinical-based and community-based settings completed the survey between April and July 2019. RESULTS: Associations were observed between both accreditation and work setting and measures of program sustainability. Accredited programs and larger, more resourced clinical institutions were particularly likely to exhibit multiple measures of sustainability. The results also identified significant gaps at the programmatic level in data collection and reporting among navigation programs, but no association was observed between programmatic data collection/reporting and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation is not currently a reimbursable service and has historically been viewed as value-added in oncology settings. Therefore, factors associated with sustainability are critical to understand how to build a framework for successful navigation programs within the current system and also to develop the case for potential reimbursement in the future.

Oncology social work practice behaviors: a national survey of AOSW members.

PURPOSE: Few studies have examined the practices of U.S. oncology social workers since the implementation of distress screening. This study presents data about oncology social work practice behaviors, including participation in distress screening and interdisciplinary team integration. DESIGN: Using a cross-sectional survey design, Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW) members were invited to complete the anonymous web-based survey between June and September 2019. SAMPLE: AOSW members (N = 1116) were invited through email and listserv posts to participate in the survey with 533 (47.8%) responding. METHODS: A quantitative on-line survey was used to investigate demographics, distress screening roles and other practice behaviors. Descriptive analyses were conducted on the data. RESULTS: Respondents engaged in a range of practice behaviors consistent with the Standards and Scope of Practice published by AOSW, primarily engaging in patient-focused work. They reported viewing their role as integrated with the interdisciplinary team. Respondents were highly involved in distress screening processes, primarily receiving referrals from distress screening but also collecting/reviewing screening results and referring patients to other providers based on those results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHOSOCIAL PROVIDERS: Knowledge about the ways that oncology social workers enact their role across settings and locations could be useful to those developing effective and integrated psychosocial oncology programs, especially distress screening protocols. Specific knowledge about the practice behaviors of oncology social workers in the U.S. may also help to delineate the role from the work of other interdisciplinary oncology team members.

Community Health Worker Initiatives: An Approach to Design and Measurement.

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the engagement of community health workers (CHWs) to help vulnerable populations achieve optimum health through a variety of initiatives implemented in several organizational units. PROGRAM: This article provides a unified and comprehensive logic model for these initiatives that also serves as a common framework for monitoring and evaluation. IMPLEMENTATION: We developed a logic model to fully describe the levels of effort needed to effectively and sustainably engage CHWs. We mapped monitoring and evaluation metrics currently used by federally funded organizations to the logic model to assess the extent to which measurement and evaluation are aligned to programmatic efforts. EVALUATION: We found that the largest proportion of monitoring and evaluation metrics (61%) currently used maps to the "CHW intervention level" of the logic model, a smaller proportion (37%) maps to the "health system and community organizational level," and a minimal proportion (3%) to the "statewide infrastructure level." DISCUSSION: Organizations engaging CHWs can use the logic model to guide the design as well as performance measurement and evaluation of their CHW initiatives.

Mental Health Among Parents of Children Aged <18 Years and Unpaid Caregivers of Adults During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, December 2020 and February-⁠March 2021.

Early during the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly two thirds of unpaid caregivers of adults reported adverse mental or behavioral health symptoms, compared with approximately one third of noncaregivers† (1). In addition, 27% of parents of children aged <18 years reported that their mental health had worsened during the pandemic (2). To examine mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic among U.S. adults on the basis of their classification as having a parenting role (i.e., unpaid persons caring for children and adolescents aged <18 years, referred to as children in this report) or being an unpaid caregiver of adults (i.e., persons caring for adults aged ≥18 years),§ CDC analyzed data from cross-sectional surveys that were administered during December 2020 and February-March 2021 for The COVID-19 Outbreak Public Evaluation (COPE) Initiative.¶ Respondents were categorized as parents only, caregivers of adults only, parents-caregivers (persons in both roles), or nonparents/noncaregivers (persons in neither role). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for any adverse mental health symptoms, particularly suicidal ideation, were higher among all respondents who were parents, caregivers of adults, or both compared with respondents who were nonparents/noncaregivers and were highest among persons in both roles (parents-caregivers) (any adverse mental health symptoms: aOR = 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1-6.2; serious suicidal ideation: aOR = 8.2, 95% CI = 6.5-10.4). These findings highlight that parents and caregivers, especially those balancing roles both as parents and caregivers, experienced higher levels of adverse mental health symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic than adults without these responsibilities. Caregivers who had someone to rely on for support had lower odds of experiencing any adverse mental health symptoms. Additional measures are needed to improve mental health among parents, caregivers, and parents-caregivers.

Partnering with healthcare facilities to understand psychosocial distress screening practices among cancer survivors: pilot study implications for study design, recruitment, and data collection.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing distress screening (DS) of cancer patients to inform and promote uptake in cancer treatment facilities. We describe the recruitment and data collection challenges and recommendations for assessing DS in oncology treatment facilities. METHODS: We recruited CoC-accredited facilities and collected data from each facility's electronic health record (EHR). Collected data included cancer diagnosis and demographics, details on DS, and other relevant patient health data. Data were collected by external study staff who were given access to the facility's EHR system, or by facility staff working locally within their own EHR system. Analyses are based on a pilot study of 9 facilities. RESULTS: Challenges stemmed from being a multi-facility-based study and local institutional review board (IRB) approval, facility review and approval processes, and issues associated with EHR systems and the lack of DS data standards. Facilities that provided study staff remote-access took longer for recruitment; facilities that performed their own extraction/abstraction took longer to complete data collection. CONCLUSION: Examining DS practices and follow-up among cancer survivors necessitated recruiting and working directly with multiple healthcare systems and facilities. There were a number of lessons learned related to recruitment, enrollment, and data collection. Using the facilitators described in this manuscript offers increased potential for working successfully with various cancer centers and insight into partnering with facilities collecting non-standardized DS clinical data.

Oncology social work intervention index (OSWii): An instrument to measure oncology social work interventions to advance research.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: There is much interest in screening for and treating psychosocial distress in cancer patients; however, little is known about if and how psychosocial services are provided for patients demonstrating significant levels of distress. Oncology social workers (OSWs) are the primary providers of psychosocial care for cancer patients and their families, yet there is no widely-used and empirically-validated instrument that captures the range of interventions provided by OSWs. The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of the Oncology Social Work Intervention Index (OSWii), designed to measure interventions provided by OSWs, and the results of testing the instrument. METHODS: We conducted a content analysis of data collected by the Association of Oncology Social Work's Project to Assure Quality Cancer Care (APAQCC). We analyzed 3,194 responses from an open-ended question that described social work interventions following a distress screen. Five investigators coded the data in an iterative process to enhance instrument validity. The resulting instrument measuring OSWii was piloted with 38 oncology social workers across 156 individual cases. RESULTS: OSWs who piloted the OSWii spent a majority of time (72%) engaging in clinical interventions. The user assessment revealed that data entry was rapid, the instrument was easy to use, and the content was relevant to the cancer treatment setting. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Using a standardized instrument that reflects OSWs' clinical interventions is critical for researchers to examine the impact of psychosocial interventions on patient outcomes. This index may also advance the translation of scientific findings into patient-centered psychosocial cancer care. This pilot test suggests that the OSWii is both scalable and useful.

Lung Cancer Incidence in Nonmetropolitan and Metropolitan Counties - United States, 2007-2016.

Lung and bronchus (lung) cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States (1). In 2016, 148,869 lung cancer deaths were reported.* Most lung cancers can be attributed to modifiable exposures, such as tobacco use, secondhand smoke, radon, and asbestos (1). Exposure to lung cancer risk factors vary over time and by characteristics such as sex, age, and nonmetropolitan or metropolitan residence that might affect lung cancer rates (1,2). A recent report found that lung cancer incidence rates were higher and decreased more slowly in nonmetropolitan counties than in metropolitan counties (3). To examine whether lung cancer incidence trends among nonmetropolitan and metropolitan counties differed by age and sex, CDC analyzed data from U.S. Cancer Statistics during 2007-2016, the most recent years for which data are available. During the 10-year study period, lung cancer incidence rates were stable among females aged <35, 45-64, and ≥75 years in nonmetropolitan counties, were stable among females aged <35 years in metropolitan counties, and decreased in all other groups. Overall, among males, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 99 to 82 per 100,000 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 83 to 63 in metropolitan areas; among females, lung cancer incidence rates decreased from 61 to 58 in nonmetropolitan areas and from 57 to 50 in metropolitan areas. A comprehensive approach to lung cancer prevention and control includes such population-based strategies as screening for tobacco dependence, promoting tobacco cessation, implementing comprehensive smoke-free laws, testing all homes for radon and using proven methods to lower high radon levels, and reducing exposure to lung carcinogens such as asbestos (1). Increasing the implementation of these strategies, particularly among persons living in nonmetropolitan counties, might help to reduce disparities in the decline of lung cancer incidence.

Establishing effective patient navigation programs in oncology.

PURPOSE: Recent advances in cancer treatment have resulted in greatly improved survival, and yet many patients in the USA have not benefited due to poor access to healthcare and difficulty accessing timely care across the cancer care continuum. Recognizing these issues and the need to facilitate discussions on how to improve navigation services for patients with cancer, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) held a workshop entitled, "Establishing Effective Patient Navigation Programs in Oncology. The purpose of this manuscript is to disseminate the conclusions of this workshop while providing a clinically relevant review of patient navigation in oncology. DESIGN: Narrative literature review and summary of workshop discussions RESULTS: Patient navigation has been shown to be effective at improving outcomes throughout the spectrum of cancer care. Work remains to develop consensus on scope of practice and evaluation criteria and to align payment incentives and policy. CONCLUSION: Patient navigation plays an essential role in overcoming patient- and system-level barriers to improve access to cancer care and outcomes for those most in need.

Comprehensive cancer control: promoting survivor health and wellness.

PURPOSE: As of 2016, an estimated 15.5 million cancer survivors were living in the United States and the number of cancer survivors is expected to increase to 20.3 million by 2026. Numerous clinical studies have shown that comorbidities, such as obesity and diabetes, and unhealthy lifestyle choices, such as physical inactivity and heavy smoking, negatively influence overall quality of life and long-term survival of cancer survivors. Accordingly, survivorship programs seek to focus on overall wellness, including symptom management, monitoring for late effects of treatment, monitoring for recurrence, helping patients adapt healthy behaviors, and quality of life. This paper provides a broad overview of public health efforts to address the needs of cancer survivors. METHODS: To describe a range of examples of survivorship initiatives in comprehensive cancer control, we analyzed documents from comprehensive cancer control programs and coalitions and solicited detailed examples from several national partners. RESULTS: Comprehensive cancer control programs, coalitions, and partners are undertaking myriad initiatives to address cancer survivorship and building upon evidence-based interventions to promote healthy behaviors for cancer survivors across the country. CONCLUSION: A coordinated public health approach to caring for the growing population of cancer survivors can help address the long-term physical, psychosocial, and economic effects of cancer treatment on cancer survivors and their families.

"When I Needed It": Evaluation of the Use and Timing of Sharsheret's Thriving Again Program for Young Breast Cancer Survivors.

Approximately 11% of all new breast cancer cases in the USA occur in women aged 45 years or younger. In 2011, CDC funded seven organizations to develop or enhance programs for young breast cancer survivors (YBCS). This paper analyzed program evaluation data collected by one of these organizations to gain a more nuanced understanding of how recipients used the newly developed program and resources for YBCS. Sharsheret's Thriving Again program was evaluated through a web-based survey of survivorship program participants. The evaluation asked questions about participant demographics, use of the kit's survivorship care plan (SCP), satisfaction with the timing of survivorship kit receipt, and factors related to survivors' use of additional Sharsheret programs. We conducted bivariate analyses of survey responses and calculated chi-square statistics for significance testing. Of the 163 women who responded to the survey, 43% were diagnosed with breast cancer at or before age 45 and 69% were of Jewish descent. The majority of women who used the SCP found it helpful to facilitate cancer treatment (94%), follow-up (85%), or discussions with providers (91%). A total of 75% of women who received the SCP kit while either recently diagnosed or undergoing treatment were satisfied with the timing of receipt. Survey respondents found the Thriving Again program and survivorship kit beneficial and indicated timing preferences for when to receive resources and support. Supporting the self-efficacy of cancer survivors may improve survivors' quality of life and is an important aspect of survivorship programs.

A qualitative analysis of smokers' perceptions about lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) began recommending lung cancer screening for high risk smokers aged 55-80 years using low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. In light of these updated recommendations, there is a need to understand smokers' knowledge of and experiences with lung cancer screening in order to inform the design of patient education and tobacco cessation programs. The purpose of this study is to describe results of a qualitative study examining smokers' perceptions around lung cancer screening tests. METHODS: In 2009, prior to the release of the updated USPSTF recommendations, we conducted 12 120-min, gender-specific focus groups with 105 current smokers in Charlotte, North Carolina and Cincinnati, Ohio. Focus group facilitators asked participants about their experience with three lung cancer screening tests, including CT scan, chest x-ray, and sputum cytology. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Participants were 41-67 years-old, with a mean smoking history of 38.9 pack-years. Overall, 34.3% would meet the USPSTF's current eligibility criteria for screening. Most participants were unaware of all three lung cancer screening tests. The few participants who had been screened recalled limited information about the test. Nevertheless, many participants expressed a strong desire to pursue lung cancer screening. Using the social ecological model for health promotion, we identified potential barriers to lung cancer screening at the 1) health care system level (cost of procedure, confusion around results), 2) cultural level (fatalistic beliefs, distrust of medical system), and 3) individual level (lack of knowledge, denial of risk, concerns about the procedure). Although this study was conducted prior to the updated USPSTF recommendations, these findings provide a baseline for future studies examining smokers' perceptions of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: We recommend clear and patient-friendly educational tools to improve patient understanding of screening risks and benefits and the use of best practices to help smokers quit. Further qualitative studies are needed to assess changes in smokers' perceptions as lung cancer screening with CT scan becomes more widely used in community practice.

Refining the Patient Navigation Role in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Results From an Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patient navigators help individuals overcome barriers to increase access to cancer screening, diagnosis, and timely treatment. This study, part of a randomized intervention trial investigating the efficacy of patient navigation in increasing colonoscopy completion, examined navigators' activities to ameliorate barriers to colonoscopy screening in a medically disadvantaged population. METHODS: This study was conducted from 2012 through 2014 at Boston Medical Center. We analyzed navigator service delivery and survey data collected on 420 participants who were navigated for colonoscopy screening after randomization to this intervention. Key variables under investigation included barriers to colonoscopy, activities navigators undertook to reduce barriers, time navigators spent on each activity and per contact, and patient satisfaction with navigation services. Descriptive analysis assessed how navigators spent their time and examined what aspects of patient navigation were most valued by patients. RESULTS: Navigators spent the most time assessing patient barriers/needs; facilitating appointment scheduling; reminding patients of appointments; educating patients about colorectal cancer, the importance of screening, and the colonoscopy preparation and procedures; and arranging transportation. Navigators spent an average of 44 minutes per patient. Patients valued the navigators, especially for providing emotional/peer support and explaining screening procedures and bowel preparation clearly. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help clarify the role of the navigator in colonoscopy screening within a medically disadvantaged community. These findings may help further refine the navigator role in cancer screening and treatment programs as facilities strive to effectively and efficiently integrate navigation into their services.

In their own words: A qualitative study of the psychosocial concerns of posttreatment and long-term lung cancer survivors.

Although lung cancer is the deadliest type of cancer, survival rates are improving. To address the dearth of literature about the concerns of lung cancer survivors, the authors conducted 21 in-depth interviews with lung cancer survivors that focused on experiences during diagnosis, treatment, and long-term survivorship. Emergent themes included feeling blamed for having caused their cancer, being stigmatized as throwaways, and long-term survivors' experiencing surprise that they are still alive, given poor overall survival rates. Survivors also desired increased public support. It is imperative for healthcare and public health professionals to learn more about needs of this population.

Health behaviors and quality of life among colorectal cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: To examine, at the population level, health behaviors, comorbidities, and health-related quality of life among colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors compared with other cancer survivors and persons without cancer. METHODS: We used data from the 2009 and 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System cancer survivor modules. We calculated descriptive statistics, conducted chi-square tests for comparisons, and used multivariable logistic regression analysis to compare CRC survivors with other cancer survivors and persons without cancer. RESULTS: Of the 52,788 cancer survivors included in this analysis, 4001 reported being CRC survivors. When compared with other cancer survivors, CRC survivors reported higher percentages of obesity and lack of physical activity; however, they had lower levels of current smoking. Adjusted results show that CRC survivors were significantly more likely to report lack of physical activity, fair/poor health, and other chronic health conditions compared with persons without a cancer diagnosis. Conversely, CRC survivors reported lower levels of current smoking than persons without cancer. CONCLUSIONS: CRC survivors have a higher proportion of heath conditions and behaviors that may significantly increase their risks for recurrence or development of a second cancer. Targeted interventions to address these health issues should be considered.

Engaging Community Health Workers in Primary Care Practices: Provider Understanding of Roles, Benefits, and Barriers.

Community health workers (CHWs) are increasingly addressing health disparities in primary care settings; however, there is little information about how primary care practitioners (PCPs) interact with CHWs or perceive CHW roles. We examined PCP engagement with CHWs in adult primary care settings. Overall, 55% of 1504 PCPs reported working with CHWs; involvement with CHWs differed by some PCP demographic and practice-related factors. While PCPs perceived CHWs as engaging in most nationally endorsed CHW roles, they identified several barriers to integrating CHWs into care teams. Findings can inform ongoing efforts to advance health equity through integrating CHWs into primary care practices.

Lessons learned from the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program.

This report briefly summarizes 13 articles in this dedicated supplement to Cancer documenting the full implementation and evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP). The supplement includes 3 articles that describe clinical and quality outcomes; 2 articles that describe programmatic and clinical costs; 3 that were based on a multiple case study, using qualitative methods to describe the overall implementation experience of this initiative; and 4 articles written by and about individual program sites. The comprehensive, multi-methods evaluation conducted alongside the program produced many important lessons regarding the design, start-up, and implementation of colorectal cancer screening in this high-need population, and paved the way for the CDC to establish a larger, population-based colorectal cancer control initiative, broadly aligned with expectations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act through its population-based emphasis on using a health systems approach to increase colorectal cancer screening. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2817-9. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer, as the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among men and women in the United States, represents an important area for public health intervention. Although colorectal cancer screening can prevent cancer and detect disease early when treatment is most effective, few organized public health screening programs have been implemented and evaluated. From 2005 to 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 5 sites to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP), which was designed to reach medically underserved populations. METHODS: The authors conducted a longitudinal, multiple case study to analyze program implementation processes. Qualitative methods included interviews with 100 stakeholders, 125 observations, and review of 19 documents. Data were analyzed within and across cases. RESULTS: Several themes related to CRCSDP implementation emerged from the cross-case analysis: the complexity of colorectal cancer screening, the need for teamwork and collaboration, integration of the program into existing systems, the ability of programs to use wisdom at the local level, and the influence of social norms. Although these themes were explored independently from 1 another, interaction across themes was evident. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening is clinically complex, and its screening methods are not well accepted by the general public; both of these circumstances have implications for program implementation. Using patient navigation, engaging in transdisciplinary teamwork, assimilating new programs into existing clinical settings, and deferring to local-level wisdom together helped to address complexity and enhance program implementation. In addition, public health efforts must confront negative social norms around colorectal cancer screening.