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.

Changes in Screening Test Volume in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program during the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2020-2022.

INTRODUCTION: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) observed significant declines in screening volume early in the COVID-19 pandemic, January-June 2020, with variation by race/ethnicity and geography. We aimed to determine how screening in the NBCCEDP recovered from these early declines as it is important for monitoring the long-term impact on women served by the program. METHODS: Extending the previous analyses, we compared monthly breast (BC) and cervical cancer (CVC) screening volume in the NBCCEDP during 2020-2022, to five-year, pre-COVID-19 pandemic averages (2015-2019), and calculated percent change. Results were stratified by race/ethnicity and rurality groups. We employed multiple one-way ANOVA tests, which included multiple comparisons, to test for significant differences between groups. RESULTS: By December 2022, NBCCEDP breast and cervical cancer screening volumes had not fully recovered to pre-COVID-19 5-year averages, and recovery in breast cancer screening volume was slower than that of cervical cancer. Both BC and CVC screening among women in metro areas showed the smallest average monthly deficits (-8.8% BC and -4.9% CVC) compared to monthly pre-COVID-19 pandemic 5-year averages, and screening among women in rural areas showed the greatest deficits (-37.3% BC and -26.7% CVC). BC and CVC screening among Hispanic women showed the greatest improvements compared to the pre-COVID-19 averages (8.2% BC and 9.5% CVC), and cervical cancer screening among non-Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander women showed the greatest deficits (-41.4% CVC). CONCLUSION: For increased intervention efforts, NBCCEDP recipients can focus on populations demonstrating greatest deficits in screening volume.

Are National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program Recipients Providing Services in Counties Heavily Burdened by Breast and Cervical Cancer?

INTRODUCTION: Alignment of National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) clinical services with the spatial distribution of breast and cervical cancer burden is essential to maximizing programmatic impact and addressing cancer disparities. This study identified spatial clustering of breast and cervical cancer burden scores and assessed whether and to what extent NBCCEDP clinical services were associated with clusters for the 5-year period, 2015-2019. METHODS: We examined burden scores for spatial clustering using Local Indicators of Spatial Association (LISA) tests in GeoDA. We then used t-tests to compare the NBCCEDP 5-year average percentage of eligible women served clinical breast and cervical cancer services between hotspot (high burden) and coolspot clusters. RESULTS: There was statistically significant spatial clustering in the pattern of breast and cervical cancer burden scores across counties, with hotspot clusters mostly observed in the Southern region, Idaho and Nevada. For both breast and cervical cancer, higher percentages of eligible women received breast and cervical cancer clinical services in coolspot clusters compared to hotspot clusters during each year from 2015-2019. CONCLUSION: NBCCEDP clinical services can help reduce breast and cervical cancer burden. Yet, during 2015-2019, increased service delivery was not aligned with the spatial distribution of counties with greater breast and cervical cancer burdens. NBCCEDP recipients may improve their impact on breast and cervical cancer burden by prioritizing and consistently increasing service delivery in cancer burden hotspot clusters if they have not already maximized their resources in these areas.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Integrated approaches to delivering cancer screenings to address disparities: lessons learned from the evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening among groups with low screening uptake. This engagement has enabled the health systems participating in the program to enhance infrastructure, systems, and process to implement interventions for colorectal cancer screening. These improvements have enabled other health promotion innovations such as the delivery of integrated interventions and supporting activities (referred to as integrated approaches) for multiple cancers. Using implementation science frameworks, the program evaluation team has examined these integrated approaches to capture the experiences of the awardees, health systems, and clinics. METHODS AND RESULTS: The findings from this comprehensive evaluation are presented in a series of 3 manuscripts. The first manuscript provides a conceptual framework for integrated approaches for cancer screening to support comprehensive evaluations and offers recommendations for future research. The second manuscript presents findings on key factors that support readiness for implementing integrated approaches based on qualitative interviews guided by implementation science constructs. The final manuscript reports on the challenges and benefits of integrated approaches to increase cancer screening in primary care facilities based on lessons learned from three real-world implementation case studies. CONCLUSION: Integrated models for implementing cancer screening could offer cost-effective approaches to reduce healthcare disparities. Additional implementation science-based systematic evaluations are needed to ensure integrated approaches are optimized, and cost-efficient models are scaled up.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success. CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Factors that support readiness to implement integrated evidence-based practice to increase cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake. RESULTS: We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners' readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities. DISCUSSION: The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics' readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

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.

Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality. Implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) increases CRC screening. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which combinations of EBIs or strategies led to increases in clinic-level screening rates among clinics participating in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Data were collected from CRCCP clinics between 2015 and 2018 and the analysis was conducted in 2020. The outcome variable was the annual change in clinic level CRC screening rate in percentage points. We used first difference (FD) estimator of linear panel data regression model to estimate the associations of outcome with independent variables, which include different combinations of EBIs and intervention strategies. The study sample included 486 unique clinics with 1156 clinic years of total observations. The average baseline screening rate was 41 % with average annual increase of 4.6 percentage points. Only two out of six combinations of any two EBIs were associated with increases in screening rate (largest was 6.5 percentage points, P < 0.001). Any combinations involving three EBIs or all four EBIs were significantly associated with the outcome with largest increase of 7.2 percentage points (P < 0.001). All interventions involving 2-3 strategies led to increases in rate with largest increase associated with the combination of increasing community demand and access (6.1 percentage points, P < 0.001). Clinics implementing combinations of these EBIs, particularly those including three or more EBIs, often were more likely to have impact on screening rate change than those implementing none.

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.

Evidence-Based Interventions and Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: The Colorectal Cancer Screening Program, 2015-2017.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening rates among people aged 50-75 years in areas where rates are lower than state or national levels. The aim of this study is to better understand the effectiveness of specific Colorectal Cancer Control Program components. METHODS: The study population included clinics enrolled in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program during Years 1 and 2. Clinic data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually from 2015 to 2017 for program evaluation were used. The outcome variable was screening rate change through Program Year 2, and predictor variables were a new implementation or enhancement of evidence-based interventions and other program components. The analysis, conducted in 2020, used ordinary least square and generalized estimating equations regressions and first difference models to estimate the associations of independent variables with the outcome. RESULTS: Of the total 336 clinics, 50%-70% newly implemented or enhanced different evidence-based interventions. Among these, client reminders were most highly associated with the increase in screening rates (8.0 percentage points). Provider reminder was not significantly associated with any change in screening rates. Among all program components, having a colorectal cancer screening champion was most highly (8.4 percentage points) associated with screening rate change. Results from different models were slightly different but in agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and colorectal cancer screening champions were associated with increased clinic-level colorectal cancer screening rates. Universal implementation of these strategies can substantially increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the U.S.

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.

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.