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.

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.

Rural libraries implementing walking groups or walking groups plus civic engagement for walkability in rural communities: a comparative effectiveness trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rural residents generally lack adequate physical activity to benefit health and reduce disparities in chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and certain cancers. The Socioecological Model describes physical activity as involving a dynamic and reciprocal interaction between individual, social, and community factors. Community group-based walking programs and civic engagement interventions aimed at enhancing physical activity have been successful in rural communities but have not targeted all three socioecological levels. Public libraries can act as innovative public health partners in rural communities. However, challenges remain because rural libraries often lack the capacity to implement evidence-based health promotion programming. The goals of this study are (1) build the capacity for rural libraries to implement evidence-based health promotion programs, (2) compare changes in physical activity between a group-based walking program and a combined group-based walking and civic engagement program with rural residents, and (3) conduct an implementation evaluation. METHODS: We will conduct a comparative effectiveness study of a group-based walking (standard approach) versus a group-based walking plus civic engagement program (combined approach) aimed at enhancing walkability to increase physical activity among rural adults. Key mediators between the program effects and change in outcomes will also be identified. Finally, we will evaluate program implementation, conduct a cost effectiveness evaluation, and use a positive deviance analysis to understand experiences of high and low changers on key outcomes. Twenty towns will be matched and randomized to one of the two conditions and our aim is to enroll a total of 350-400 rural residents (15-20 per town). Study outcomes will be assessed at baseline, and 6, 12, and 24 months. DISCUSSION: This study will build the capacity of rural libraries to implement evidence-based walking programs as well as other health promotion programs in their communities. The study results will answer questions regarding the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of two multilevel physical activity interventions targeting rural communities. We will learn what works and how these multilevel interventions can be implemented in rural populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05677906.

REPRESENT recommendations: improving inclusion and trust in cancer early detection research.

Detecting cancer early is essential to improving cancer outcomes. Minoritized groups remain underrepresented in early detection cancer research, which means that findings and interventions are not generalisable across the population, thus exacerbating disparities in cancer outcomes. In light of these challenges, this paper sets out twelve recommendations to build relations of trust and include minoritized groups in ED cancer research. The Recommendations were formulated by a range of stakeholders at the 2022 REPRESENT consensus-building workshop and are based on empirical data, including a systematic literature review and two ethnographic case studies in the US and the UK. The recommendations focus on: Long-term relationships that build trust; Sharing available resources; Inclusive and accessible communication; Harnessing community expertise; Unique risks and benefits; Compensation and support; Representative samples; Demographic data; Post-research support; Sharing results; Research training; Diversifying research teams. For each recommendation, the paper outlines the rationale, specifications for how different stakeholders may implement it, and advice for best practices. Instead of isolated recruitment, public involvement and engagement activities, the recommendations here aim to advance mutually beneficial and trusting relationships between researchers and research participants embedded in ED cancer research institutions.

Equitable implementation of lung cancer screening: avoiding its potential to mirror existing inequities among people who use tobacco.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, but the advent of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography offers a tremendous opportunity to improve lung cancer outcomes. Unfortunately, implementation of lung cancer screening has been hampered by substantial barriers and remains suboptimal. Specifically, the commentary emphasizes the intersectionality of smoking history and several important sociodemographic characteristics and identities that should inform lung cancer screening outreach and engagement efforts, including socioeconomic considerations (e.g., health insurance status), racial and ethnic identity, LGBTQ + identity, mental health history, military experience/veteran status, and geographic residence in addressing specific community risk factors and future interventions in efforts to make strides toward equitable lung cancer screening. METHODS: Members of the Equitable Implementation of Lung Cancer Screening Interest Group with the Cancer Prevention and Control Network (CPCRN) provide a critical commentary based on existing literature regarding smoking trends in the US and lung cancer screening uptake to propose opportunities to enhance implementation and support equitable distribution of the benefits of lung cancer screening. CONCLUSION: The present commentary utilizes information about historical trends in tobacco use to highlight opportunities for targeted outreach efforts to engage communities at high risk with information about the lung cancer screening opportunity. Future efforts toward equitable implementation of lung cancer screening should focus on multi-level implementation strategies that engage and work in concert with community partners to co-create approaches that leverage strengths and reduce barriers within specific communities to achieve the potential of lung cancer screening.

Community paramedicine in Central Oregon: A promising model to reduce non-urgent emergency department utilization among medically complex Medicaid beneficiaries.

Background: Community paramedicine has emerged as a promising model to redirect persons with nonmedically emergent conditions to more appropriate and less expensive community-based health care settings. Outreach through community paramedicine to patients with a history of high hospital emergency department (ED) use and chronic health conditions has been found to reduce ED use. This study examined the effect of community paramedicine implemented in 2 rural counties in reducing nonemergent ED use among a sample of Medicaid beneficiaries with complex medical conditions and a history of high ED utilization. Methods: A cluster randomized trial approach with a stepped wedge design was used to test the effect of the community paramedicine intervention. ED utilization for non-urgent care was measured by emergency medicine ED visits and avoidable ED visits. Results: The community paramedicine intervention reduced ED utilization among a sample of 102 medically complex Medicaid beneficiaries with a history of high ED utilization. In the unadjusted models, emergency medical ED visits decreased by 13.9% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.98) or 6.1 visits saved for every 100 people. Avoidable emergency department visits decreased by 38.9% (IRR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84) or 2.3 visits saved for every 100 people. Conclusion: Our results suggest community paramedicine is a promising model to achieve a reduction in ED utilization among medically complex patients by managing complex health conditions in a home-based setting.

The Community Research Liaison Model: Facilitating community-engaged research.

The Community Research Liaison Model (CRLM) is a novel model to facilitate community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-academic research partnerships focused on health priorities identified by the community. This model, informed by the Principles of Community Engagement, builds trust among rural communities and expands capacity for community and investigator-initiated research. We describe the CRLM development process and how it is operationalized today. We followed a multi-phase process to design and implement a community engagement model that could be replicated. The resulting CRLM moves community-academic research collaborations from objectives to outputs using a conceptual framework that specifies our guiding principles, objectives, and actions to facilitate the objectives (i.e., capacity, motivations, and partners), and outputs. The CRLM has been fully implemented across Oregon. Six Community Research Liaisons collectively support 18 predominantly rural Oregon counties. Since 2017, the liaison team has engaged with communities on nearly 300 community projects. The CRLM has been successful in facilitating CEnR and community-academic research partnerships. The model has always existed on a dynamic foundation and continues to be responsive to the lessons learned by the community and researchers. The model is expanding across Oregon as an equitable approach to addressing health disparities across the state.

Represent: A community engagement roadmap to improve participant representation in cancer early detection research: An Oregon case study.

Introduction: While authentic and sustained community involvement in the research process is critically important to making new technologies and interventions effective and socially acceptable, there is uneven participation across sociodemographic, racial, and ethnic communities in many research areas, including cancer early detection research. Currently, 18% of cancer in the United States impacts Hispanics and Latinos, this population accounts for < 10% of research participants. Understanding barriers and facilitators to cancer early detection research is imperative to the ultimate success of this research. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: understand Hispanic and Latino community perspectives in participation in cancer early detection research; and identify sustainable and mutually beneficial approaches to community engagement and involvement. Methods: The Oregon Case Study, led by Oregon Health & Science University's Community Outreach, Research and Engagement (CORE) in partnership with colleagues at Vocal, a partnership between Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Manchester and Cambridge University, adopted a participatory research approach to better understand participation in cancer early detection research from the perspectives of Oregon's Hispanic and Latino community members. We implemented two evidence-based community engagement models, the Community Engagement Studio and the Community Readiness Assessment Model. Using a facilitated format prescribed by each community engagement model, community members helped us to answer two research questions: (1) What methods help us increase participation of underrepresented communities in cancer early detection research?; and (2) How can we build trust between researchers and underrepresented communities within cancer early detection research? Quantitative (i.e., descriptive statistic) and qualitative (i.e., thematic analysis) analytic methods were used to measure and assess community knowledge, leadership, beliefs, and resources regarding participation in cancer early detection research. Results: A total of 36 Hispanic and Latino community members participated in the two community engagement models. We identified three emergent themes pertaining to participation in cancer early detection research that include: low-level awareness of cancer early detection research and opportunities for research participation, structural barriers to research participation, and uncertainty of the benefits of research participation. Conclusion: Our approach, using two evidence-based community engagement models, yielded valuable insights about perceptions of research participation for Hispanic and Latino community members. These findings, synthesized into three key themes, led to actionable recommendations to increase research participation.

HPV self-collection: what are we waiting for? Exploration of attitudes from frontline healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE: Polymerase chain reaction based human papilloma virus (HPV) self-collection for cervical cancer screening is well established. It is utilized worldwide, accepted by patients, is cost-effective, has comparable sensitivity to provider-collected samples, and increases screening rates, however clinical practice in the United States has not shifted to include HPV self-collection. This study sought to examine provider knowledge and attitudes to better understand why HPV self-collection is not being utilized. METHODS: An observational, qualitative study was conducted. Data were collected with semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews with Oregon healthcare providers. Focus groups and interviews were continued until data saturation was achieved. A grounded theory method was used for analysis, a cyclical process of coding data, memo-writing, and theoretical sampling to the point of saturation. RESULTS: Eighteen healthcare providers participated in the focus group and interviews. They represented 14 of 36 counties across Oregon and 50% were physicians, 33% were nurse practitioners, and 94% worked within family medicine. All providers performed cervical cancer screening according to current American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines. Five overarching themes emerged: provider concerns, clinical and provider barriers, patient perspective and barriers, process-based themes, and barriers to cervical cancer screening. Nearly all providers stated they will offer HPV self-collection to most of their patients once available. CONCLUSION: While providers identified concerns and barriers for initiating HPV self-collection, there was a strong desire to implement HPV self-collection and acceptance within patient populations was assumed. Providers indicated the need for HPV self-collection to be incorporated into national screening guidelines along with best practices on how to successfully implement this modality to further increase cervical cancer screening rates.

A Coordinated Approach to Implementing Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening in a Rural Community Hospital.

PURPOSE: The authors describe a rural community hospital's approach to lung cancer screening using low-dose CT (LDCT) to address the high incidence of lung cancer mortality. METHODS: An implementation project was conducted, documenting planning, education, and restructuring processes to implement a lung cancer screening program using LDCT in a rural community hospital (population 64,917, Rural-Urban Continuum Code 5) located in a region with the highest lung cancer mortality in Oregon. The hospital and community partners organized the implementation project around five recommendations for an efficient and effective lung cancer screening program that accurately identifies high-risk patients, facilitates timely access to screening, provides appropriate follow-up care, and offers smoking cessation support. RESULTS: Over a 3-year period (2018-2020), 567 LDCT scans were performed among a high-risk population. The result was a 4.8-fold increase in the number of LDCT scans from 2018 to 2019 and 54% growth from 2019 to 2020. The annual adherence rate increased from 51% in 2019 to 59.6% in 2020. Cancer was detected in 2.11% of persons scanned. Among the patients in whom lung cancer was detected, the majority of cancers (66.6%) were categorized as stage I or II. CONCLUSIONS: This rural community hospital's approach involved uniting primary care, specialty care, and community stakeholders around a single goal of improving lung cancer outcomes through early detection. The implementation strategy was intentionally organized around five recommendations for an effective and efficient lung cancer screening program and involved planning, education, and restructuring processes. Significant stakeholder involvement on three separate committees ensured that the program's design was relevant to local community contexts and patient centered. As a result, the screening program's reach and adherence increased each year of the 3-year pilot program.

An Evidence-Based Walking Program in Oregon Communities: Step It Up! Survivors.

Physical activity can help mitigate the long-term symptoms and side effects of cancer and its treatment, but most cancer survivors are not active enough to achieve these benefits. An evidence-based strategy to promote physical activity among adults is a community group-based walking program. However, many evidence-based programs do not achieve intended population health outcomes because of the challenges of real-world implementation. We used the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation to conceptualize implementation of a capacity-building intervention to support delivery of a community group-based walking program. We adapted an evidence-based guide for community group-based walking programs for cancer survivors and their support network. We provided a capacity-building intervention (technical assistance and small-grant funding) and evaluated this implementation intervention. We assessed effectiveness of the intervention by measuring adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation costs, and penetration through monthly progress reports, site visit observations, interviews, and a final report. Eight organizations received a small grant and technical assistance and implemented Step It Up! Survivors (SIUS). SIUS helped cancer survivors increase their physical activity, establish social connections, and be part of a supportive environment. Despite receiving monthly technical assistance, some grantees experienced challenges in recruiting participants, developing community partnerships, and adhering to the prescribed implementation plan. Implementation facilitators included community partners and specific components (eg, incentives for participants, webinars). Organizations needed different amounts and types of assistance with adaptation and implementation. Overall fidelity to SIUS ranged from 64% to 88%. Some integrated SIUS within existing organizational programming for sustainability. The provision of funding and technical assistance was a successful implementation intervention. Our results suggest a need to better tailor technical assistance while organizations are in the process of adapting, implementing, and sustaining an evidence-based program in their local communities.

Patient experiences in behavioral health integrated primary care settings: the role of stigma in shaping patient outcomes over time.

Behavioral health integration (BHI) models seek to improve patient experience and outcomes by bridging physical and behavioral health services. Past BHI research has not focused on stigma in these settings, which has been previously found to impact patient engagement and outcomes. We surveyed patients over a two year period at 12 integrated clinics in Oregon using measures developed by a Patient Advisory Team. Over a quarter of respondents reported stigmatization (26.81%). Compared to non-stigmatized patients, those who reported stigma had five times the odds of reporting unmet health needs (OR=5.14, p<0.0001), three times the odds reporting issues accessing care (OR=2.93, p<0.0001), six times the odds reporting hassle to get care (OR=6.49, p<0.0001), and three times the odds of reporting poor communication between providers (OR=3.45, p<0.0001). After examining the interaction between stigmatization and time, we found that stigmatized patients had lower odds at year two of reporting unmet health needs (OR=0.68, p=0.0034), issues accessing care (OR=0.77, p=0.0400), hassle getting care (OR=0.57, p=0.0001), and poor provider communication (OR=0.77, p=0.0544). We found that stigma remained prevalent for patients seeking care in the integrated clinics studied despite integration. Systems should consider integration efforts and reducing stigmatizing experiences in tandem to truly improve patient outcomes.