Using information technology to integrate tobacco use treatment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer patients who receive evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment are more likely to quit and remain abstinent, but tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) are not consistently offered. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, through the Cancer Moonshot, funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). C3I supports 52 cancer centers to implement and expand evidence-based tobacco treatment in routine oncology care. Integration into routine care involves the use of health information technology (IT), including modifying electronic health records and clinical workflows. Here, we examine C3I cancer centers' IT leadership involvement and experiences in tobacco-dependence treatment implementation. Method: This qualitative study of C3I-funded cancer centers integrated data from online surveys and in-person, semistructured interviews with IT leaders. We calculated descriptive statistics of survey data and applied content analysis to interview transcripts. Results: Themes regarding IT personnel included suggestions to involve IT early, communicate regularly, understand the roles and influence of the IT team, and match program design with IT funding and resources. Themes regarding electronic health record (EHR) modifications included beginning modifications early to account for long lead time to make changes, working with IT to identify and adapt existing EHR tools for TTP or designing tools that will support a desired workflow developed with end-users, and working with IT personnel to make sure TTPs comply with system and state policies (e.g., privacy laws). Conclusions: The experiences of C3I cancer centers regarding the use of health IT to enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to potentially enhance TTP implementation and patient outcomes.

Almost a quarter of patients first diagnosed with cancer report current cigarette smoking. There are tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) that effectively help patients quit smoking to improve cancer treatment response, survival, and quality-of-life. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) and supported 52 cancer centers to implement these TTPs. A key component of these programs is the information technology (IT) necessary to refer patients to the program and document their progress. As coordinators of C3I, our team conducted interviews with IT leaders at these cancer centers to learn about the implementation of the programs. IT leaders suggested that IT teams be involved early in the program implementation process and that leaders communicate with the IT team regularly to address necessary changes to referral and documentation systems. IT teams are important to involve early and regularly throughout the TTP implementation process because they have unique knowledge of how funding, policy, and existing technological tools will impact the implementation and success of the program. Our findings emphasize the importance of involving IT teams early in the planning process for such programs. Studies such as this focusing on the experiences and knowledge of specific team members, such as the IT team, enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation and can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to implement these programs to improve patient outcomes.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. METHODS: DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. RESULTS: In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

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.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components. RESULTS: Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system. CONCLUSION: Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

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.

Operationalizing Leadership and Clinician Buy-In to Implement Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Programs in Routine Oncology Care: A Mixed-Method Study of the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Delivering evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment in oncology settings improves smoking abstinence and cancer outcomes. Leadership engagement/buy-in is critical for implementation success, but few studies have defined buy-in or described how to secure buy-in for tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) in cancer care. This study examines buy-in during the establishment of tobacco treatment programs at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. METHODS: We utilized a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative data and qualitative interviews with program leads in the U.S.-based NCI Moonshot-supported Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (n = 20 Centers). We calculated descriptive statistics and applied structural coding and content analysis to qualitative data. RESULTS: At least 75% of participating centers secured health care system administrative, clinical, and IT leadership buy-in and support. Six themes emerged from interviews: engaging leadership, access to resources, leveraging federal funding support to build leadership interest, designating champions, identifying training needs, and ensuring staff roles and IT systems support workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Buy-in among staff and clinicians is defined by the belief that the TTP is necessary, valuable, and evidence based. Recognizing and securing these dimensions of buy-in can facilitate implementation success, leading to improved cancer outcomes.

Reach and effectiveness of the NCI Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Smoking cessation results in improved cancer treatment outcomes. However, the factors associated with successful implementation of cessation programs in cancer care settings are not well understood. This paper presents the reach the reach and effectiveness of cessation programs implemented in NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted among C3I Cancer Centers from July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 (N = 38). Reach was calculated as the proportion of patients reporting current smoking that received cessation treatment and was analyzed overall and by organizational characteristics. Smoking abstinence rates were determined by the proportion of participants self-reporting smoking abstinence in the previous 7 and 30 days at 6 months after treatment. On average, nearly 30% of patients who smoked received any cessation treatment. In-person counseling was most implemented but reached an average of only 13.2% of patients who smoked. Although less frequently implemented, average reach was highest for counseling provided via an interactive voice response system (55.8%) and telephone-based counseling (18.7%). Reach was higher at centers with more established programs, electronic health record referral systems, and higher smoking prevalence. At 6-month follow-up, about a fifth of participants on average had not smoked in the past 7 days (21.7%) or past 30 days (18.6%). Variations in reach by organizational characteristics suggest that leadership engagement and investment in technology-facilitated programs may yield higher levels of reach. Understanding which implementation and intervention strategies facilitate greater cessation treatment reach and effectiveness could lead to improved outcomes among cancer patients who smoke.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications. METHODS: We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs. RESULTS: Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129-$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122-$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17-$573), materials ($6-$435), training ($96-$516), technology ($171-$2759), and equipment ($10-$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70-$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330-$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications. CONCLUSIONS: Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Transdisciplinary research outcomes based on the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer II initiative experience.

Intractable public health problems are influenced by interacting multi-level factors. Dynamic research approaches in which teams of scientists collaborate beyond traditional disciplinary, institutional, and geographic boundaries have emerged as promising strategies to address pressing public health priorities. However, little prior work has identified, defined, and characterized the outcomes of transdisciplinary (TD) research undertaken to address public health problems. Through a mixed methods approach, we identify, define, and characterize TD outcomes and their relevance to improving population health using the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) II initiative as a case example. In Phase I, TREC II leadership (n = 10) identified nine initial TD outcomes. In Phase II (web-based survey; n = 23) and Phase III (interviews; n = 26; and focus groups, n = 23) TREC members defined and characterized each outcome. The resulting nine outcomes are described. The nine complementary TD outcomes can be used as a framework to evaluate progress toward impact on complex public health problems. Strategic investment in infrastructure that supports team development and collaboration, such as a coordination center, cross-center working groups, annual funded developmental projects, and face-to-face meetings, may foster achievement of these outcomes. This exploratory work provides a basis for the future investigation and development of quantitative measurement tools to assess the achievement of TD outcomes that are relevant to solving multifactorial public health problems.

Oncology provider and African-American breast cancer survivor perceptions of the emotional experience of transitioning to survivorship.

PURPOSE: To examine the emotional experience of African American breast cancer survivors (BCS), and the information exchange between providers and patients, during transitioning to post-treatment survivorship. RESEARCH APPROACH: We conducted a qualitative study using interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We sought perspectives of oncology providers (n = 27) and African-American breast cancer survivors (BCS) (n = 45) who provided and received care in three counties in Washington State. METHODS: African-American community consultants conducted interviews and focus groups. Thematic coding and constant comparison were applied to identify emergent themes. FINDINGS: Participants reported emotional health information and support were needed but not consistently provided, resulting in a sense of survivor isolation. Systemic challenges limited providers' ability to deliver emotional support information. Survivors and providers expressed similar understandings of the emotional impact of transition, but each group highlighted different, yet complementary priorities to address emotional needs of African-American BCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is congruence between African-American BCS and oncology providers perceptions of the emotional experience of transitioning to post-treatment survivorship, but patients are not receiving adequate information and resources to help them adequately address their emotional needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY: Improved care continuity, team-based approaches, and partnerships between health systems and community organization partnerships may help patients and providers recognize and address emotional needs during the transition.

Text Message Preferences for Surveillance Colonoscopy Reminders Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors.

Background. Surveillance colonoscopy 1-year after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery effectively reduces CRC mortality, yet less than half of survivors undergo this procedure. Text message reminders can improve CRC screening and other health behaviors, but use of this strategy to address barriers to CRC surveillance has not been reported. Objectives. The goal of this qualitative study was to assess CRC survivor perspectives on barriers to colonoscopy to inform the design of a theory-based, short message service (SMS) intervention to increase surveillance colonoscopy utilization. Method. CRC survivors in Western Washington participated in one of two focus groups to explore perceived barriers to completing surveillance colonoscopy and preferences for SMS communication. Content analysis using codes representative of the health belief model and prospect theory constructs were applied to qualitative data. Results. Thirteen CRC survivors reported individual-, interpersonal-, and system-level barriers to surveillance colonoscopy completion. Participants were receptive to receiving SMS reminders to mitigate these barriers. They suggested that reminders offer supportive, loss-framed messaging; include educational content; and be personalized to communication preferences. Finally, they recommended that reminders begin no earlier than 9 months following CRC surgery and not include response prompts. Conclusions. Our study demonstrates that CRC survivors perceive SMS reminders as an acceptable, valuable tool for CRC surveillance. Furthermore, there may be value in integrating theoretical frameworks to design, implement, and evaluate SMS interventions to address barriers to CRC surveillance. As physicians play a key role in CRC surveillance, provider- and system-level interventions that could additively improve the impact of SMS interventions are also worth exploring.

If You Listen, I Will Talk: the Experience of Being Asked About Suicidality During Routine Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Routine population-based screening for depression is an essential part of evolving health care models integrating care for mental health in primary care. Depression instruments often include questions about suicidal thoughts, but how patients experience these questions in primary care is not known and may have implications for accurate identification of patients at risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience of routine population-based depression screening/assessment followed, for some, by suicide risk assessment and discussions with providers. DESIGN: Qualitative, interview-based study. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven patients from Kaiser Permanente Washington who had recently screened positive for depression on the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ] and completed the full PHQ-9. APPROACH: Criterion sampling identified patients who had recently completed the PHQ-9 ninth question which asks about the frequency of thoughts about self-harm. Patients completed semi-structured interviews by phone, which were recorded and transcribed. Directive and conventional content analyses were used to apply knowledge from prior research and elucidate new information from interviews; thematic analysis was used to organize key content overall and across groups based on endorsement of suicide ideation. KEY RESULTS: Four main organizing themes emerged from analyses: (1) Participants believed being asked about suicidality was contextually appropriate and valuable, (2) some participants described a mismatch between their lived experience and the PHQ-9 ninth question, (3) suicidality disclosures involved weighing hope for help against fears of negative consequences, and (4) provider relationships and acts of listening and caring facilitated discussions about suicidality. CONCLUSIONS: All participants believed being asked questions about suicidal thoughts was appropriate, though some who disclosed suicidal thoughts described experiencing stigma and sometimes distanced themselves from suicidality. Direct communication with trusted providers, who listened and expressed empathy, bolstered comfort with disclosure. Future research should consider strategies for reducing stigma and encouraging fearless disclosure among primary care patients experiencing suicidality.

A framework for coordination center responsibilities and performance in a multi-site, transdisciplinary public health research initiative.

Funding bodies in the USA and abroad are increasingly investing in transdisciplinary research, i.e. research conducted by investigators from different disciplines who work to create novel theoretical, methodological, and translational innovations to address a common problem. Transdisciplinary research presents additional logistical and administrative burdens, yet few models of successful coordination have been proposed or substantiated, nor have performance outcomes or indicators been established for transdisciplinary coordination. This work uses the NIH-funded Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) Centers Initiative as a case study to put forward a working framework of transdisciplinary research coordination center (CC) responsibilities and performance indicators. We developed the framework using a sequential mixed methods study design. TREC CC functions and performance indicators were identified through key-informant interviews with CC personnel and then refined through a survey of TREC research center and funding agency investigators and staff. The framework included 23 TREC CC responsibilities that comprised five functional areas: leadership and administration, data and bioinformatics, developmental projects, education and training, and integration and self-evaluation, 10 performance outcomes and 26 corresponding performance indicators for transdisciplinary CCs. Findings revealed high levels of agreement about CC responsibilities and performance metrics across CC members and constituents. The success of multi-site, transdisciplinary research depends on effective research coordination. The functions identified in this study help clarify essential responsibilities of transdisciplinary research CCs and indicators of success of those transdisciplinary CCs. Our framework adds new dimensions to the notion of identifying and assessing CC activities that may foster transdisciplinarity.

Perspectives of Community Advisory Board Members in a Community-Academic Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Community-academic partnerships are increasingly used to engage community members and researchers in research activities; however, little is known about the motivations and perceptions of community members to participate in such projects. OBJECTIVES: The overall goal was to elicit Community Advisory Board (CAB) members' motivations and perceptions of involvement in a community-academic partnership about cancer prevention. METHODS: An external evaluator conducted 15 one-on-one semi-structured interviews with CAB members of the project. Coders conducted a conventional content analysis to derive themes from the interview data. RESULTS: Emergent themes were grouped into four categories: CAB members' 1) motivation to participate in the project, 2) perceptions that they had insider information, 3) views of roles and responsibilities in project planning and implementation, and 4) challenges and suggestions to improve the community-academic relationship. CONCLUSIONS: This study found substantial evidence that CAB members perceived they were working to involve the Hispanic community in health promotion.

"I Smoke Like This to Suppress These Issues That Are Flaws of My Character": Challenges and Facilitators of Cessation Among Smokers With Bipolar Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Smokers with bipolar disorder (BD) have low rates of successful quitting, yet no prior studies have evaluated the process of quitting among these smokers in the context of a current quit attempt. To facilitate development of more effective interventions, we conducted a qualitative exploration of challenges and facilitators of quitting in an intervention study for smokers with BD. METHODS: Participants were adult daily smokers with BD (n = 10) who completed a 10-week smoking cessation intervention consisting of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and nicotine patch. We administered semistructured interviews focused on the quitting process at the end of treatment and used inductive content analysis to extract themes. RESULTS: Emergent themes representing challenges of quitting included social impediments, lack of awareness, avoidance, maladaptive beliefs, ambivalence, benefits of smoking, and difficulties with nicotine replacement. Themes representing change facilitators included positive treatment effects (ACT-specific, nonspecific, and nicotine patch-related), coping behaviors, reasons to quit, changes in self-perception, and social benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest a need for assistance with obtaining social support and handling social impediments, interrupting the automaticity of smoking, expanding the behavioral repertoire to handle aversive internal states that tend to be avoided by smoking, preventing maladaptive beliefs from interfering with quitting, taking meaningful action toward change while experiencing ambivalence, either replacing the benefits of smoking or accepting their loss, and troubleshooting difficulties with nicotine replacement. Findings regarding facilitators of quitting supported previous quantitative findings that the ACT intervention impacted theory-based targets and highlighted the importance of the counseling relationship.

Breast Cancer Disparities Among Women in Underserved Communities in the USA.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Breast cancer disparities that exist between high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are also reflected within population subgroups throughout the United States (US). Here we examine three case studies of US populations "left behind" in breast cancer outcomes/equity. RECENT FINDINGS: African Americans in Chicago, non-Latina White women in Appalachia, and Latinas in the Yakima Valley of Washington State all experience a myriad of factors that contribute to lower rates of breast cancer detection and appropriate treatment as well as poorer survival. These factors, related to the social determinants of health, including geographic isolation, lack of availability of care, and personal constraints, can be addressed with interventions at multiple levels. SUMMARY: Although HICs have reduced mortality of breast cancer compared to LMICs, there remain inequities in the US healthcare system. Concerted efforts are needed to ensure that all women have access to equitable screening, detection, treatment, and survivorship resources.

Design Considerations for mHealth Programs Targeting Smokers Not Yet Ready to Quit: Results of a Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) smoking cessation programs are typically designed for smokers who are ready to quit smoking. In contrast, most smokers want to quit someday but are not yet ready to quit. If mHealth apps were designed for these smokers, they could potentially encourage and assist more people to quit smoking. No prior studies have specifically examined the design considerations of mHealth apps targeting smokers who are not yet ready to quit. OBJECTIVE: To inform the user-centered design of mHealth apps for smokers who were not yet ready to quit by assessing (1) whether these smokers were interested in using mHealth tools to change their smoking behavior; (2) their preferred features, functionality, and content of mHealth programs addressing smoking; and (3) considerations for marketing or distributing these programs to promote their uptake. METHODS: We conducted a sequential exploratory, mixed-methods study. Qualitative interviews (phase 1, n=15) were completed with a demographically diverse group of smokers who were smartphone owners and wanted to quit smoking someday, but not yet. Findings informed a Web-based survey of smokers from across the United States (phase 2, n=116). Data were collected from April to September, 2016. RESULTS: Findings confirmed that although smokers not yet ready to quit are not actively seeking treatment or using cessation apps, most would be interested in using these programs to help them reduce or change their smoking behavior. Among phase 2 survey respondents, the app features, functions, and content rated most highly were (1) security of personal information; (2) the ability to track smoking, spending, and savings; (3) content that adaptively changes with one's needs; (4) the ability to request support as needed; (5) the ability to earn and redeem awards for program use; (6) guidance on how to quit smoking; and (7) content specifically addressing management of nicotine withdrawal, stress, depression, and anxiety. Results generally did not vary by stage of change for quitting smoking (precontemplation vs contemplation). The least popular feature was the ability to share progress via social media. Relevant to future marketing or distribution considerations, smokers were price-sensitive and valued empirically validated programs. Program source, expert recommendations, and user ratings were also important considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Smokers who are not yet ready to quit represent an important target group for intervention. Study findings suggest that many of these individuals are receptive to using mHealth tools to reduce or quit smoking, despite not having made a commitment to quit yet. The preferences for specific mHealth intervention features, functionality, and content outlined in this paper can aid addiction treatment experts, design specialists, and software developers interested in creating engaging interventions for smokers who want to quit in the future but are not yet committed to this important health goal.