Patient motivators of postoperative electronic patient-reported outcome symptom monitoring use in thoracic surgery patients: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems can be used to engage patients in remote symptom monitoring to support postoperative care. We interviewed thoracic surgery patients with ePRO experience to identify factors that influenced use of ePROs to report their symptoms post-discharge. METHOD: This qualitative study used semi-structured telephone interviews with adults who underwent major thoracic surgery at an academic medical center in North Carolina. Individuals who enrolled in symptom monitoring, completed at least one ePRO survey, and were reachable by phone for the interview were included. The ePRO surveys assessed 10 symptoms, including validated Patient-Reported Outcome Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measures and thoracic surgery-specific questions. Surveys, offered via web-based and automated telephone options, were administered for four weeks post-discharge with alerts sent to clinicians for concerning symptoms. The interviews were guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model for behavior change (COM-B) and examined factors that influenced patients' completion of ePRO surveys post-discharge. Team members independently coded interviews and identified themes, informed by COM-B. We report descriptive statistics (demographics, number of surveys completed) and themes organized by COM-B components. RESULTS: Of 28 patients invited, 25 (89%) completed interviews from July to October 2022. Participants were a median 58 years, 56% female, 80% White, and 56% had a history of malignancy. They completed 131/150 (87%) possible ePRO surveys. For capability, participants reported building ePROs into their routine and having the skills and knowledge, but lacking physical and emotional energy, to complete ePROs. For opportunity, participants identified the ease and convenience of accessing ePROs and providers' validation of ePROs. Motivators were perceived benefits of a deepening connection to their clinical team, improved symptom management for themselves and others, and self-reflection about their recovery. Factors limiting motivation included lack of clarity about the purpose of ePROs and a disconnect between symptom items and individual recovery experience. CONCLUSIONS: Patients described being motivated to complete ePROs when reinforced by clinicians and considered ePROs as valuable to their post-discharge experience. Future work should enhance ePRO patient education, improve provider alerts and communications about ePROs, and integrate options to capture patients' complex health journeys.

People who undergo thoracic surgery often experience pain and other symptoms while recovering at home. These symptoms can be severe and may reduce overall quality of life and potentially result in some patients returning to the hospital for future treatment. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes can be used as a method for having patients regularly track and report any symptoms they experience while at home, and how severe those symptoms are, using digital technology such as an online survey or automated phone survey. Surgical care team members may then follow up with patients about their symptoms. More information was needed about the patient experience with completing these surveys about their symptoms. In this study, we interviewed patients who had completed Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes after thoracic surgery to understand what may (or may not) have impelled them to participate and to learn how to improve the use of these surveys for patients. This study found that patients generally felt they were able to complete the symptom surveys. Key motivators included feeling more connected to their surgeon by completing the symptom surveys and having the opportunity to reflect on how their recovery was going at home. However, patients also discussed not having a clear understanding of the purpose of the symptom surveys and how their responses might affect their care. The study findings highlight the need for improved patient education and indicate that improvements to the survey questions and to how surgeons review patients' responses may be needed.

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? METHODS: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. RESULTS: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. CONCLUSIONS: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Implementation studio: implementation support program to build the capacity of rural community health educators serving immigrant communities to implement evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions.

PURPOSE: Rural community-based organizations (CBOs) serving immigrant communities are critical settings for implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The Implementation Studio is a training and consultation program focused on facilitating the selection, adaptation, and implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs. This paper describes implementation and evaluation of the Implementation Studio on CBO's capacity to implement EBIs and their clients' knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and intention to screen. METHODS: Thirteen community health educators (CHEs) from two CBOs participated in the Implementation Studio. Both CBOs selected CRC EBIs during the Studio. The evaluation included two steps. The first step assessed the CHEs' capacity to select, adapt, and implement an EBI. The second step assessed the effect of the CHEs-delivered EBIs on clients' knowledge of CRC and intention to screen (n = 44). RESULTS: All CHEs were Hispanic and women. Pre/post-evaluation of the Studio showed an increase on CHEs knowledge about EBIs (pre: 23% to post: 75%; p < 0.001). CHEs' ability to select, adapt, and implement EBIs also increased, respectively: select EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), adapt EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), and implement EBI (pre: 29% to post: 75%; p = 0.003). Pre/post-evaluation of the CHE-delivered EBI showed an increase on CRC screening knowledge (p < 0.5) and intention to screen for CRC by their clients. CONCLUSION: Implementation Studio can address unique needs of low resource rural CBOs. An implementation support program with training and consultation has potential to build the capacity of rural CBOs serving immigrant communities to implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04208724 registered.

Implementing Physical Activity Recommendations in Clinical Practice: A Survey of Oncology Nurses' Perspectives.

PROBLEM STATEMENT: Better understanding of oncology nurses' perspectives about how interventions should be designed can promote physical activity (PA) in clinical settings. DESIGN: 75 oncology nurses completed online surveys. DATA SOURCES: A published survey, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, was used to assess multilevel factors that influence implementation of evidence-based interventions. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics were applied to quantitative data; directed content analyses were applied to qualitative data. FINDINGS: Participants believed it was important to discuss PA with patients; however, they had limited self-efficacy and resources to provide PA counseling. Barriers to providing counseling included competing clinical demands and a lack of education about PA for cancer survivors and resources. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Findings inform how interventions can be designed for implementation and sustained practice change in clinical settings. Integration of PA education in routine clinical practice will lead to increased PA and, ultimately, improved quality of life among cancer survivors.

Mixed methods evaluation of the inaugural year of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's (CPCRN) scholars program.

PURPOSE: A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. METHODS: The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and ten mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar's program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. RESULTS: Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. CONCLUSION: The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.

Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.

PURPOSE: To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond. CONCLUSION: CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

A Systematic Review of Dietary Interventions for Cancer Survivors and Their Families or Caregivers.

Family or caregiver engagement has the potential to support healthy dietary changes among cancer survivors. However, little is known about these family- or caregiver-involved dietary interventions and their effects. This systematic review aimed to identify the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in dietary interventions for cancer survivors and their families or caregivers and to synthesize intervention effects on dietary and health outcomes. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted systematic searches in three databases and identified 12 trials (16 peer-reviewed manuscripts) for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted from these manuscripts and the BCT taxonomy was used to identify the BCTs. A total of 38 BCTs were identified from 12 trials, 13 of which were used in at least half of the 12 trials. Ten studies reported significant intervention effects on health outcomes (e.g., adiposity) and six suggested significant improvements in dietary behaviors (e.g., fruit and vegetable intake). Overall, this review found that family- or caregiver-involved interventions for cancer survivors significantly improved dietary and health outcomes. Future research should identify BCTs particularly for dietary changes and develop effective dyadic strategies to facilitate diet-related interactions between survivors and their families or caregivers to enhance their engagement in healthy diets.

Development and initial testing of a multi-stakeholder intervention for Lynch syndrome cascade screening: an intervention mapping approach.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an underdiagnosed hereditary condition carrying an increased lifetime risk for colorectal and endometrial cancer and affecting nearly 1 million people in the United States. Cascade screening, systematic screening through family members of affected patients, could improve identification of Lynch syndrome, but this strategy is underused due to multi-level barriers including low knowledge about Lynch syndrome, low access to genetics services, and challenging family dynamics. METHODS: We used intervention mapping, a 6-step methodology to create stakeholder-driven interventions that meet the needs of a target population, to develop an intervention to improve cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. The intervention development process was guided by input from key stakeholders in Lynch syndrome care and patients. We conducted usability testing on the intervention with Lynch syndrome patients using qualitative semi-structured interviewing and rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: We developed a workbook intervention named Let's Talk that addresses gaps in knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and other perceived barriers to cascade screening for Lynch syndrome. Let's Talk contained educational content, goal setting activities, communication planning prompts and supplemental resources for patients to plan family communication. Evidence-based methods used in the workbook included information chunking, guided practice, goal setting and gain-framing. We conducted usability testing focused on the complexity and relative advantage of the intervention through 45-min virtual interviews with 10 adult patients with Lynch syndrome recruited from a national advocacy organization in the United States. Usability testing results suggested the intervention was acceptable in terms of complexity and relative advantage to other available resources, but additional information for communication with young or distant family members and a web-based platform could enhance the intervention's usability. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention mapping provided a framework for intervention development that addressed the unique needs of Lynch syndrome patients in overcoming barriers to cascade screening. Future work is needed to transform Let's Talk into a web-based tool and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention in clinical practice with patients and genetic counselors. Intervention mapping can be useful to researchers as an evidence-based technique to develop stakeholder-centered interventions for addressing the needs of other unique populations.

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute's Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on 'health equity and context' to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. DISCUSSION: In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of the implementation of health-related evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are conducted infrequently and, when performed, often use a limited set of quantitative methods to estimate the cost and effectiveness of EBIs. These studies often underestimate the resources required to implement and sustain EBIs in diverse populations and settings, in part due to inadequate scoping of EBI boundaries and underutilization of methods designed to understand the local context. We call for increased use of diverse methods, especially the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, for conducting and better using economic evaluations and related insights across all phases of implementation. MAIN BODY: We describe methodological opportunities by implementation phase to develop more comprehensive and context-specific estimates of implementation costs and downstream impacts of EBI implementation, using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. We focus specifically on the implementation of complex interventions, which are often multi-level, resource-intensive, multicomponent, heterogeneous across sites and populations, involve many stakeholders and implementation agents, and change over time with respect to costs and outcomes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBIs as examples, we outline several approaches to specifying the "boundaries" of EBI implementation and analyzing implementation costs by phase of implementation. We describe how systems mapping and stakeholder engagement methods can be used to clarify EBI implementation costs and guide data collection-particularly important when EBIs are complex. In addition, we discuss the use of simulation modeling with sensitivity/uncertainty analyses within implementation studies for projecting the health and economic impacts of investment in EBIs. Finally, we describe how these results, enhanced by careful data visualization, can inform selection, adoption, adaptation, and sustainment of EBIs. CONCLUSION: Health economists and implementation scientists alike should draw from a larger menu of methods for estimating the costs and outcomes associated with complex EBI implementation and employ these methods across the EPIS phases. Our prior experiences using qualitative and systems approaches in addition to traditional quantitative methods provided rich data for informing decision-making about the value of investing in CRC screening EBIs and long-term planning for these health programs. Future work should consider additional opportunities for mixed-method approaches to economic evaluations.

Applying Theory to Explain the Influence of Factors External to an Organization on the Implementation of an Evidence-Based Intervention.

Despite its widely acknowledged influence on implementation, limited research has been done on how the external environment (i.e., outer setting) determines when organizations adopt and implement new interventions. Determinant frameworks identify several outer setting-level factors such as funding streams, inter-organizational relationships, and peer pressure. However, these frameworks do not explain how or why outer-setting factors influence implementation. To advance research in this area, we argue for the importance of deriving theory-based propositions from organization theory to explain how outer setting factors influence organizations. Drawing on the work of the Organization Theory in Implementation Science (OTIS) project, we identified 20 propositions from five classic organization theories-Complexity Theory, Contingency Theory, Institutional Theory, Resource Dependence Theory, and Transaction Cost Economics. We then applied those propositions to hypothesize relationships among outer setting factors, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes in five case studies of evidenced-based tobacco control interventions. The five case studies address the implementation of smoke-free policies, community health worker-led tobacco education and cessation programs, 5 A's (Ask, Advise, Assess, Assist, and Arrange), point-of-sale tobacco marketing policy interventions, and quitlines. The case studies illustrate how propositions may be used to guide the selection and testing of implementation strategies. Organization theories provide a menu of propositions that offer guidance for selecting and optimizing high-leverage implementation strategies that target factors at the level of outer setting. Furthermore, these propositions suggest testable hypotheses regarding the mechanisms underlying the influence of outer-setting factors on how and why organizations adopt and implement interventions.

Increasing Access to Organization Theories for Implementation Science.

Background: Organization theories offer numerous existing, highly relevant, yet largely untapped explanations of the organizational dynamics underlying evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation. Rooted in ideas regarding power, autonomy, and control, organization theories can explain how and why organizations adopt, implement, and sustain EBI use. Although they have gained visibility, organization theories remain underused in implementation research, perhaps due to their inaccessibility to implementation scientists. To improve access to organization theory among implementation scientists, we summarized organization theories with relevance to implementation science. Methods: Led by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Organization Theory for Implementation Science workgroup, we employed a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus among 18 experts at the intersection of organization and implementation science regarding organization theories with relevance to implementation science. From texts that described the organization theories, using standardized abstraction forms, two investigators independently abstracted information regarding constructs, propositions regarding how or why constructs might influence implementation, the potential relevance of organization theories' propositions for implementation, and overviews of each theory. The investigators then reconciled discrepancies until reaching consensus. A third investigator reviewed reconciled abstraction forms for accuracy, coherence, and completeness. Findings: We identified nine organization theories with relevance to implementation science: contingency, complexity, institutional, network, organizational learning, resource dependence, sociotechnical, and transaction cost economics. From the theories, we abstracted 70 constructs and 65 propositions. An example proposition from institutional theory is: "Coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures contribute to organizations…within an organizational field [becoming increasingly similar]." These propositions can be operationalized as levers to facilitate EBI implementation. Conclusions: To increase use in the field, organization theories must be made more accessible to implementation scientists. The abstraction forms developed in this study are now publicly available on the CPCRN website with the goal of increasing access to organization theories among an interdisciplinary audience of implementation scientists through the CPCRN Scholars program and other venues. Next steps include consolidating organization theory constructs into domains and translating the resulting framework for use among researchers, policymakers and practitioners, aiding them in accounting for a comprehensive set of organization theory constructs thought to influence EBI implementation.

Implementation of quality improvement coaching versus physician communication training for improving human papillomavirus vaccination in primary care: a randomized implementation trial.

Many US health departments (HDs) conduct in-person quality improvement (QI) coaching to help primary care clinics improve their HPV vaccine delivery systems and communication. Some HDs additionally conduct remote communication training to help vaccine prescribers recommend HPV vaccination more effectively. Our aim was to compare QI coaching and communication training on key implementation outcomes. In a cluster randomized trial, we offered 855 primary care clinics: 1) QI coaching; 2) communication training; or 3) both interventions combined. In each trial arm, we assessed adoption (proportion of clinics receiving the intervention), contacts per clinic (mean number of contacts needed for one clinic to adopt intervention), reach (median number of participants per clinic), and delivery cost (mean cost per clinic) from the HD perspective. More clinics adopted QI coaching than communication training or the combined intervention (63% vs 16% and 12%, both p < .05). QI coaching required fewer contacts per clinic than communication training or the combined intervention (mean = 4.7 vs 29.0 and 40.4, both p < .05). Communication training and the combined intervention reached more total staff per clinic than QI coaching (median= 5 and 5 vs 2, both p < .05), including more prescribers (2 and 2 vs 0, both p < .05). QI coaching cost $439 per adopting clinic on average, including follow up ($129/clinic), preparation ($73/clinic), and travel ($69/clinic). Communication training cost $1,287 per adopting clinic, with most cost incurred from recruitment ($653/clinic). QI coaching was lower cost and had higher adoption, but communication training achieved higher reach, including to influential vaccine prescribers.

Our cluster randomized trial compared two interventions that health departments commonly use to increase HPV vaccination coverage: quality improvement (QI) coaching and physician communication training. We found that QI coaching cost less and was more often adopted by primary care clinics, but communication training reached more staff members per clinic, including vaccine prescribers. Findings provide health departments with data needed to weigh the implementation strengths and challenges of QI coaching and physician communication training for increasing HPV vaccination coverage.

Nurses' attitudes towards their jobs in outpatient human immunodeficiency virus facilities in Namibia: A qualitative descriptive study.

AIM: The aims were to (1) describe nurses' attitudes towards their jobs, (2) identify factors that contribute to nurses' job attitudes and (3) examine how nurses' job attitudes affect their ability to perform their jobs. BACKGROUND: Nurses' job attitudes affect their ability to do their jobs well. METHODS: This was a qualitative descriptive study of 18 semi-structured interviews with nurses who work in rural health facilities. Interviews were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: Factors that influenced job attitudes included support from co-workers, workload, access to material resources, access to information, patient rapport and nurses' personal resilience. Nurses reported that positive attitudes helped them to do their jobs well and negative attitudes diminished their ability to do their jobs well. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings support investment in factors to promote positive nurse attitudes and job performance such as a healthy work environment and self-efficacy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Nurse managers can improve nurses' attitudes by advocating for tangible supports for staff such as appropriate staffing ratios, sufficient equipment, necessary training and work environments that allow safe patient interactions.

Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, screening rates in vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs) remain below national targets. CHCs in North Carolina are challenged to reach CRC screening targets as they tend to be under-resourced, have limited capacity to implement and sustain population health interventions, and typically operate independently from one another and from regional colonoscopy providers. The Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE) project is designed to address barriers to CRC screening in partnership with CHCs by implementing a multilevel intervention that includes centralized support infrastructure for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to follow-up colonoscopy. This paper describes protocols for the SCORE implementation trial. METHODS: We will conduct a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial that will assess effectiveness at increasing CRC screening and follow-up rates while also assessing implementation outcomes. The planned trial sample will include 4000 CHC patients who are at average CRC risk and due for screening. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either usual care or a multilevel intervention that includes mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation support to follow-up colonoscopy for those with abnormal FIT. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of any CRC screening test at six months after randomization. We will also conduct a multilevel assessment of implementation outcomes and determinants. DISCUSSION: This hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention that provides centralized infrastructure for mailed FIT screening and patient navigation for CHCs that operate independently of other healthcare facilities. Findings from this research will enhance understanding of the effectiveness of a centralized approach and factors that determine successful implementation in vulnerable patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on May 28, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Aligning implementation science with improvement practice: a call to action.

BACKGROUND: In several recent articles, authors have called for aligning the fields of implementation and improvement science. In this paper, we call for implementation science to also align with improvement practice. Multiple implementation scholars have highlighted the importance of designing implementation strategies to fit the existing culture, infrastructure, and practice of a healthcare system. Worldwide, healthcare systems are adopting improvement models as their primary approach to improving healthcare delivery and outcomes. The prevalence of improvement models raises the question of how implementation scientists might best align their efforts with healthcare systems' existing improvement infrastructure and practice. MAIN BODY: We describe three challenges and five benefits to aligning implementation science and improvement practice. Challenges include (1) use of different models, terminology, and methods, (2) a focus on generalizable versus local knowledge, and (3) limited evidence in support of the effectiveness of improvement tools and methods. We contend that implementation science needs to move beyond these challenges and work toward greater alignment with improvement practice. Aligning with improvement practice would benefit implementation science by (1) strengthening research/practice partnerships, (2) fostering local ownership of implementation, (3) generating practice-based evidence, (4) developing context-specific implementation strategies, and (5) building practice-level capacity to implement interventions and improve care. Each of these potential benefits is illustrated in a case study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network. CONCLUSION: To effectively integrate evidence-based interventions into routine practice, implementation scientists need to align their efforts with the improvement culture and practice that is driving change within healthcare systems worldwide. This paper provides concrete examples of how researchers have aligned implementation science with improvement practice across five implementation projects.

Using Cognitive Interviewing to Design Interventions for Implementation in Oncology Settings.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of effective interventions into clinical practice is slow, in large part, because researchers do not sufficiently attend to the realities of nurses who implement interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to provide an exemplar of how cognitive interviewing-an important and underused method for developing nursing research-can be used to design survey items and assess multilevel implementation factors. METHODS: We utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to create a survey to assess factors that influence how oncology nurses deliver physical activity interventions. Two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted with five purposively selected oncology nurses to assess survey items' clarity and effectiveness at eliciting desired information. We used a cognitive interviewing coding scheme to code data and revise unclear items. Participants completed the revised survey online and underwent a second interview to provide additional feedback. RESULTS: Seven important changes were made to the survey: how to assess nurses' perceptions of other nurses' beliefs and practices; language to capture data relating to nursing leadership and administration; increased detail to assess factors related to nurses' workplaces; language related to capturing factors related to policy; language to capture data related to equity, disparities, and cultural tailoring; terms replacement with language used by nurses; and strategy to capture data about nurses' knowledge of national physical activity recommendations for cancer survivors. DISCUSSION: Cognitive interviewing can be applied to develop survey items that capture real-world experiences and perspectives of practicing nurses. This is an essential step in developing nursing interventions that are ready to be implemented and increasing the uptake of evidence-based nursing care. Cognitive interviewing can be used across nursing settings, populations, and interventions to develop understandings of attitudes, attributes, characteristics, and perceptions for a variety of nursing interventions.

Quality Improvement Coaching for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage: A Process Evaluation in 3 States, 2018-2019.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Quality improvement (QI) coaching improves human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage, but effects of coaching have been small, and little is known about how and when QI coaching works. To assess implementation outcomes and explore factors that might explain variation in outcomes, we conducted a process evaluation of a QI coaching intervention for HPV vaccination. INTERVENTION APPROACH: QI coaches received tools and training to support 4 core coaching competencies: 1) expertise in using clinic-level adolescent vaccination data to drive change, 2) knowledge of the evidence base to support change in HPV vaccination practice, 3) familiarity with improvement strategies and action planning, and 4) skill in building relationships. EVALUATION METHODS: Our mixed methods evaluation involved collecting quantitative data through effort-tracking logs and gathering qualitative data through in-depth interviews with QI coaches (N = 11) who worked with 89 clinics in 3 US states. Data were collected on implementation outcomes and on contextual factors that might explain variations in those outcomes. Implementation outcomes included adoption by clinics, reach to providers and staff (ie, participation in the coaching visit), and implementation fidelity. RESULTS: States achieved either high adoption or high reach, but not both. For example, state A had high adoption with 94% of clinics accepting a coaching visit, but low reach with a median of 1 participant per clinic. In contrast, state C had lower adoption (29%, P < .01) than state A but higher reach (median of 4 participants per clinic, P < .01). Generally, states had high coaching protocol fidelity with the exception of advising on strategies and action planning. QI coaches described factors that might explain these variations, including strength of relationships with clinic staff and whether they recruited clinics directly or through large clinic networks. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Our findings have implications for the design of future QI coaching initiatives, including how coaches recruit clinics to ensure full clinic engagement, refinements to coaching visits, and how QI coaches can effectively engage with clinic networks. Findings could inform future QI coaching interventions to strengthen their impact on public health.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Overcoming Barriers to Cascade Testing in Lynch Syndrome: A Qualitative Study.

Cascade testing (i.e., genetic testing of family members of individuals with disease) among families affected by hereditary cancer disorders, such as Lynch syndrome, is suboptimal and thus represents a missed opportunity in cancer prevention. We aimed to fill a gap in the literature by exploring multilevel barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cascade testing for Lynch syndrome. We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Integrated Behavioral Model among key stakeholders (n = 60): Patients with Lynch syndrome and relatives (n = 20), providers (n = 20), and administrators (n = 20). Transcripts were double-coded (20% sample) using template analysis in ATLAS.ti. Barriers identified included (i) low awareness about Lynch syndrome, (ii) psychosocial barriers, (iii) lack of provider follow-up, (iv) accessibility to genetic counseling, and (v) fear of discrimination. Facilitators included (i) motivation to engage in cascade testing and (ii) free genetic testing offered to relatives. Stakeholders also recommended strategies to overcome implementation barriers in the short-term (increasing education, preparing patients for communicating with relatives), medium-term (optimizing clinical workflow and staffing resources), and long-term (nationwide standardization). These findings indicate that modifiable, multilevel barriers to the implementation of cascade testing in Lynch syndrome are experienced across stakeholders. Understanding and targeting implementation barriers is imperative to achieving public health impact of precision health interventions such as cascade testing.

Understanding the processes that Federally Qualified Health Centers use to select and implement colorectal cancer screening interventions: a qualitative study.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective at reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. Evidence-based interventions can increase screening rates, particularly when they target multiple levels (e.g., patients, providers, health care systems). However, effective interventions remain underutilized. Thus, there is a pressing need to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions. We report on formative research aimed at understanding how Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) staff select and implement CRC screening interventions, which will inform development of capacity-building strategies. We report the qualitative findings from a study that used a mixed methods design, starting with a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 staff from 14 FQHCs in 8 states. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview questions and data analysis. Related to the CFIR process domain, few respondents described conducting formal assessments of factors contributing to low screening rates prior to planning their interventions. Many described engaging champions, implementation leaders, and external change agents. Few described a systematic approach to executing implementation plans beyond conducting plan-do-study-act cycles. Reflection and evaluation consisted primarily of reviewing Uniform Data System performance measures. Findings also include themes related to factors influencing these implementation processes. Although FQHCs are implementing CRC screening interventions, they are not actively targeting the multilevel factors influencing their CRC screening rates. Our findings on gaps in FQHCs' implementation processes will inform development of strategies to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions.