The ENGAGE study: a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic services in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Germline cancer genetic testing has become a standard evidence-based practice, with established risk reduction and screening guidelines for genetic carriers. Access to genetic services is limited in many places, which leaves many genetic carriers unidentified and at risk for late diagnosis of cancers and poor outcomes. This poses a problem for childhood cancer survivors, as this is a population with an increased risk for subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN) due to cancer therapy or inherited cancer predisposition. The ENGaging and Activating cancer survivors in Genetic services (ENGAGE) study evaluates the effectiveness of an in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing. METHODS: The ENGAGE study is a 3-arm randomized hybrid type 1 effectiveness and implementation study within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study population which tests a clinical intervention while gathering information on its delivery during the effectiveness trial and its potential for future implementation among 360 participants. Participants are randomized into three arms. Those randomized to Arm A receive genetic services via videoconferencing, those in Arm B receive these services by phone, and those randomized to Arm C will receive usual care services. DISCUSSION: With many barriers to accessing genetic services, innovative delivery models are needed to address this gap and increase uptake of genetic services. The ENGAGE study evaluates the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. This study assesses the uptake in remote genetic services and identify barriers to uptake to inform future recommendations and a theoretically-informed process evaluation which can inform modifications to enhance dissemination beyond this study population and to realize the benefits of precision medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04455698) on July 2, 2020.

Right Information, Right Patient, Right Time: Utilizing the MyCareCompass Platform to Deliver Patient Education in the Oncology Setting.

Patient education is an important part of cancer care as it increases patient activation and informed decision-making, reduces anxiety, and improves outcomes. However, challenges to providing appropriate education to patients exist on both the health provider and patient side of the equation, e.g., time constraints and health literacy issues. Digital health education is a fast-growing field of interest that has been shown to improve health outcomes, increase effectiveness of medical treatments and education, lower medical costs, and enhance both clinical diagnosis and research opportunities by streamlining data collection, sharing, and analysis. In 2019, Fox Chase Cancer Center was selected by ARCHES, an established patient education software company, to pilot its award-winning digital patient engagement system MyCareCompass. During the pilot, patients scheduled for port insertions were sent electronic messages inviting them to review various online educational materials related to their procedure and subsequent concerns. The invitations and resources were seamlessly integrated into the scheduling system and timed to arrive when patients would most need them. There was high usage of the port-related materials and patients reported a high level of satisfaction with the delivery system and the information. This automated process of delivering high-quality and relevant patient education was able to be implemented smoothly with IT involvement, had a positive impact on patients without adding any extra burden to the care team, and highlighted opportunities to integrate these types of interventions into routine care.

Uptake of Genetic Research Results and Patient-Reported Outcomes With Return of Results Incorporating Web-Based Predisclosure Education.

PURPOSE: We developed a web-based education intervention as an alternative to predisclosure education with a genetic counselor (GC) to reduce participant burden and provider costs with return of genetic research results. METHODS: Women at three sites who participated in 11 gene discovery research studies were contacted to consider receiving cancer genetic research results. Participants could complete predisclosure education through web education or with a GC. Outcomes included uptake of research results, factors associated with uptake, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 819 participants, 178 actively (21.7%) and 167 passively (20.4%) declined return of results; 474 (57.9%) were enrolled. Most (60.3%) received results although this was lower than the 70% uptake we hypothesized. Passive and active decliners were more likely to be Black, to have less education, and to have not received phone follow-up after the invitation letter. Most participants selected web education (88.5%) as an alternative to speaking with a GC, but some did not complete or receive results. Knowledge increased significantly from baseline to other time points with no significant differences between those who received web versus GC education. There were no significant increases in distress between web and GC education. CONCLUSION: Interest in web-based predisclosure education for return of genetic research results was high although it did not increase uptake of results. We found no negative patient-reported outcomes with web education, suggesting that it is a viable alternative delivery model for reducing burdens and costs of returning genetic research results. Attention to attrition and lower uptake of results among Black participants and those with less formal education are important areas for future research.

Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on decisional conflict and psychological distress among early-stage breast cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT.

We conducted a nationwide, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of Healing Choices, a novel interactive education and treatment decision program rooted in the self-regulation theory framework, on decisional conflict and psychological distress at 2-month post-intervention in women with early-stage breast cancer. Patients were randomized to receive the National Cancer Institute's standard print material (control) or standard print material plus Healing Choices (the intervention). The final sample at 2-month post-intervention consisted of N = 388 participants (intervention: n = 197; control: n = 191). There were no significant differences in decisional conflict or its subscales; however, psychological distress was higher in the intervention group (16.09 ± 10.25) than in the control group (14.37 ± 8.73) at follow-up, B = 1.88, 95% CI [-0.03, 3.80], t(383) = 1.94, p = .05. Upon further examination, we found that engagement with the intervention was low-41%-prompting as-treated analyses, which showed no difference in distress between users and nonusers and a positive impact of Healing Choices on decisional conflict: decisional support subscale: users (35.36 ± 15.50) versus nonusers (39.67 ± 15.99), B = -4.31 (s.e. = 2.09), p = .04. Multiple recommendations for moving ahead stem from this work: (i) intent-to-treat analyses appeared to cause distress, cautioning against interventions that may lead to information overload; (ii) engagement with the intervention is low and future work needs to focus on increasing engagement and monitoring it throughout the study; and (iii) in studies with low engagement, as-treated analyses are critical.

Healing Choices is a multimedia software program that provides information and decision-making support for women with early-stage breast cancer. We present the results of a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the impact of Healing Choices, compared with standard of care (National Cancer Institute's standard print material), on decisional conflict and psychological distress. In total, 388 participants (197 in the intervention and 191 in the control group) completed the 2-month post-intervention assessment. Results indicated that Healing Choices did not help with treatment decision-making but was associated with higher levels of psychological distress. Use among women assigned to Healing Choices, however, was low, at 41%. When comparing women who used the program with those who did not, we found that the effect of elevated distress disappeared, while program users felt more support than nonusers during the decision-making process. In the future, interventions such as Healing Choices should be regulated so as not to cause distress via information overload, a focus on monitoring and increasing engagement with the intervention is necessary, and, when engagement is low, as-treated analyses are critical to explore the efficacy of the intervention.

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.

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.

Barriers and opportunities to measuring oncology patient navigation impact: Results from the National Navigation Roundtable survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation improves cancer care delivery for those most at risk for poor outcomes. Lack of sustainable funding threatens the full integration of navigation services into health care delivery systems. Standardized navigation metrics that document impact and identify best practices are necessary to support sustainability. METHODS: The National Navigation Roundtable administered a web-based, cross-sectional survey to oncology patient navigation programs to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of navigation metrics. The 38-item survey asked about data-collection practices and specific navigation metrics used by the program. Exploratory and descriptive statistics were used to identify factors associated with data collection and reporting. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty respondents from across the country represented navigation programs across the continuum of care. Although 538 respondents (72%) reported participating in routine data collection, only one-half of them used data for reporting purposes. For the 374 programs that used electronic health records, only 40% had discrete, reportable navigation fields, and 25% had an identifier for navigated patients. Program funding was identified as the only characteristic associated with data collection, whereas the type of data collected was associated with work setting, participation in alternative payment models, and where on the continuum navigation services are provided. Respondents participating in an oncology accreditation program were more likely to collect specific outcome metrics across the continuum and to use those data for reporting purposes. The most common barriers to data collection were time (55%) and lack of support for complex data systems and/or platforms (50%). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent data collection and reporting of oncology navigation programs remain a threat to sustainability. Aligning data collection with oncology accreditation, funding, and reimbursement is a viable path forward.

Collective pursuit for equity in cancer care: The National Navigation Roundtable.

BACKGROUND: The evidence continues to build in support of implementing patient navigation to reduce barriers and increase access to care. However, health disparities remain in cancer outcomes. The goal of the National Navigation Roundtable (NNRT) is to serve as a convener to help support the field of navigation to address equity. METHODS: To examine the progress and opportunities for navigation, the NNRT submitted a collection of articles based on the results from 2 dedicated surveys and contributions from member organizations. The intent was to help inform what we know about patient navigation since the last dedicated examination in this journal 10 years ago. RESULTS: The online survey of >700 people described navigators and examined sustainability and policy issues and the longevity, specific role and function, and impact of clinical and nonclinical navigators in addition to the role of training and supervision. In addition, a full examination of coronavirus disease 2019 and contributions from member organizations helped further define progress and future opportunities to meet the needs of patients through patient navigation. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve equity in cancer care will demand the sustained action of virtually every component of the cancer care system. It is the hope and intent of the NNRT that the information presented in this supplement will be a catalyst for action in this collective action approach.

Comparing clinical and nonclinical cancer patient navigators: A national study in the United States.

BACKGROUND: A nationwide survey was conducted to examine differences between clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators in their service provision, engagement in the cancer care continuum, personal characteristics, and program characteristics. METHODS: Using convenience sampling, 527 oncology navigators participated and completed an online survey. Descriptive statistics, χ2 statistics, and t tests were used to compare nonclinical (eg, community health worker) and clinical (eg, nurse navigators) navigators on the provision of various navigation services, personal characteristics, engagement in the cancer care continuum, and program characteristics. RESULTS: Most participants were clinical navigators (76.1%). Compared to nonclinical navigators, clinical navigators were more likely to have a bachelor's degree or higher (88.6% vs 69.6%, P < .001), be funded by operational budgets (84.4% vs 35.7%, P < .001), and less likely to work at a community-based organization or nonprofit (2.0% vs 36.5%, P < .001). Clinical navigators were more likely to perform basic navigation (P < .001), care coordination (P < .001), treatment support (P < .001), and clinical trial/peer support (P = .005). Clinical navigators were more likely to engage in treatment (P < .001), end-of-life (P < .001), and palliative care (P = .001) navigation. CONCLUSIONS: There is growing indication that clinical and nonclinical oncology navigators perform different functions and work in different settings. Nonclinical navigators may be more likely to face job insecurity because they work in nonprofit organizations and are primarily funded by grants.

Comparing Perceptions and Decisional Conflict Towards Participation in Cancer Clinical Trials Among African American Patients Who Have and Have Not Participated.

Despite efforts to increase the diversity of cancer clinical trial participants, African Americans are still underrepresented. While perceptions of participation have been studied, the objective of this study was to compare perceptions and decisional conflict towards clinical trials among African American cancer patients who have and have not participated in clinical trials to identify key areas for intervention. Post hoc analysis also looked at whether they had been asked to participate and how that group differed from those who did. Forty-one African American cancer patients were surveyed at two urban cancer centers and asked to agree/disagree to statements related to clinical trials perceptions (facilitators, barriers, beliefs, values, support, and helpfulness), and complete the O'Connor Decisional Conflict Scale. Independent-samples t tests compared participants by clinical trials participation status; 41% had participated in a clinical trial. Results revealed significant perceptual differences among the groups in three main areas: helpfulness of clinical trials, facilitators to participate in clinical trials, and barriers to participating in clinical trials. Post hoc analysis indicated that those who were not asked about clinical trials and had not participated differed significantly in all areas compared with participants. Additionally, clinical trial participants reported significantly lower decisional conflict in most items compared with both those who had and had not be asked to participate. These differences can give practitioners clues as to how to bridge the gap from non-participator to participator. Messages could then be infused in the clinician-patient dyad when introducing and discussing clinical trials, potentially providing a more effective strategy for communicating with African American patients.

Understanding Adolescent and Young Adult 6-Mercaptopurine Adherence and mHealth Engagement During Cancer Treatment: Protocol for Ecological Momentary Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer demonstrate suboptimal oral chemotherapy adherence, increasing their risk of cancer relapse. It is unclear how everyday time-varying contextual factors (eg, mood) affect their adherence, stalling the development of personalized mobile health (mHealth) interventions. Poor engagement is also a challenge across mHealth trials; an effective adherence intervention must be engaging to promote uptake. OBJECTIVE: This protocol aims to determine the temporal associations between daily contextual factors and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) adherence and explore the proximal impact of various engagement strategies on ecological momentary assessment survey completion. METHODS: At the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, AYAs with acute lymphoblastic leukemia or lymphoma who are prescribed prolonged maintenance chemotherapy that includes daily oral 6-MP are eligible, along with their matched caregivers. Participants will use an ecological momentary assessment app called ADAPTS (Adherence Assessments and Personalized Timely Support)-a version of an open-source app that was modified for AYAs with cancer through a user-centered process-and complete surveys in bursts over 6 months. Theory-informed engagement strategies will be microrandomized to estimate the causal effects on proximal survey completion. RESULTS: With funding from the National Cancer Institute and institutional review board approval, of the proposed 30 AYA-caregiver dyads, 60% (18/30) have been enrolled; of the 18 enrolled, 15 (83%) have completed the study so far. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol represents an important first step toward prescreening tailoring variables and engagement components for a just-in-time adaptive intervention designed to promote both 6-MP adherence and mHealth engagement. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32789.

Contextual Predictors of Engagement in a Tailored mHealth Intervention for Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Despite the promise of mobile health (mHealth), engagement is often too low for durable health behavior change, and little is known regarding why certain individuals abandon mHealth tools. PURPOSE: Guided by a mHealth engagement framework, we evaluated contextual predictors of objective engagement with an app for adolescents and young adults (AYA) who survived cancer. METHODS: One hundred and ten AYA survivors (M age = 20.5, 43% female, 30% racial/ethnic minority) were randomized to receive a disease self-management app that delivered 1-2 tailored messages/day for 16 weeks, and contained a survivorship care plan (SCP). Demographic, disease, psychosocial, and setting characteristics were examined as predictors of three objective engagement outcomes: (a) % of active app days, (b) % of messages read, and (c) viewed SCP in the app versus not. A subsample (n = 10) completed qualitative interviews to further assess engagement barriers. RESULTS: Self-reported uninterrupted app access (ß = -0.56, p < .001), iPhone (vs. Android) ownership (ß = 0.30, p < .001), and receiving the intervention in the summer (ß = -0.20, p = .01) predicted more active days. Lower depressed mood (ß = -0.30, p = .047) and uninterrupted app access (ß = -0.50, p < .001) predicted more messages read. Qualitatively, technical glitches and competing priorities were described as engagement barriers, whereas certain types of messages (e.g., health goal messages) were perceived as engaging. Among participants who had uninterrupted app access (n = 76), higher baseline motivation to change, better health perceptions, using the app during the summer, and iPhone ownership predicted higher engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate the importance of comprehensively assessing and planning for multi-level ecological determinants of mHealth engagement in future trials. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03363711.

Acceptability and feasibility of survivorship care plans and an accompanying mobile health intervention for adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: Self-management interventions for adolescent and young adult (AYA) survivors of childhood cancer are needed. The present study reports on the acceptability and feasibility of delivering survivorship care plans (SCPs) and an accompanying app to AYA. PROCEDURE: AYA (n = 224) ages 15-29 who completed treatment for cancer were randomized and received a digital SCP only or an SCP plus a mobile app intended to enhance self-management. For 16 weeks, the app delivered one to two daily messages complementing information in their SCP and tailored based on age, treatment, and health goal. Data are presented on feasibility, self-reported acceptability (including satisfaction and perceived benefits) and its relationship to app engagement (for those in app group), and feedback from qualitative interviews conducted with 10 AYA. RESULTS: The SCP and app proved feasible as evidenced by high recruitment and retention, access to technology, time analysis, moderate app engagement, and minimal technical issues. However, 12% reported never reading the SCP and 8% never used the app. The app and SCP were acceptable to AYA, and SCP acceptability ratings did not differ between groups. For those with the app, acceptability was positively related to message engagement. AYA recommended enhanced individualization and design features of the SCP and app. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the use of tailored SCPs and mobile health interventions for most AYA, as well as the need for further refinement and research. Delivery of SCPs and digital interventions are acceptable and feasible to AYA survivors, and may help promote health-related knowledge and survivorship self-management.

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration.

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Using theory and user-centered design in digital health: The development of the mychoice communication tool to prepare patients and improve informed decision making regarding clinical trial participation.

OBJECTIVE: Designing salient digital health interventions requires theoretically-based formative research and user-center design with stakeholder input throughout impacting content and technology design. mychoice is a theory-based, stakeholder-guided digital health tool to improve clinical trial informed decision making, particularly among African American patients. METHODS: mychoice was developed by (1) mixed-methods formative research, including in-depth interviews (n=16) and surveys (N=41) with African American cancer patients who had and had not participated in a clinical trial; (2) e-tool design process including perceptual mapping analysis to prioritize messages, multi-disciplinary team and stakeholder input; and (3) iterative production and user testing. RESULTS: Interview findings showed that clinical trial participants expressed more positive attributes about and an openness to consider clinical trials, even though they expressed common concerns such as "fear of being a guinea pig". Survey results indicated that clinical trial participants expressed they had been given information to make the decision (P = .001), while those who had not more frequently reported (P > .001) that no one had talked to them about trials. Perceptual mapping indicated that values such as "helping find a cure" or "value to society" had little resonance to those who had not participated, providing message strategy for prototype development. User testing of the tool resulted in modifications; the most significant was the adaptation to a multi-cultural version. CONCLUSIONS: With the promise of digital health interventions, theory-guided, user-centered and best practice development is critical and mychoice serves as an example of the application of these principles.

A learning community approach to identifying interventions in health systems to reduce colorectal cancer screening disparities.

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the United States has been increasing, screening rates are not optimal, and there are persistent disparities in CRC screening and mortality, particularly among minority patients. As most CRC screening takes place in primary care, health systems are well-positioned to address this important population health problem. However, most health systems have not actively engaged in identifying and implementing effective evidence-based intervention strategies that can raise CRC screening rates and reduce disparities. Drawing on the Collective Impact Model and the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation, our project team applied a learning community strategy to help two health systems in southeastern Pennsylvania identify evidence-based CRC screening interventions for primary care patients. Initially, this approach involved activating a coordinating team, steering committee (health system leadership and stakeholder organizations), and patient and stakeholder advisory committee to identify candidate CRC screening intervention strategies. The coordinating team guided the steering committee through a scoping review to identify seven randomized trials that identified interventions that addressed CRC screening disparities. Subsequently, the coordinating team and steering committee applied a screening intervention classification typology to select an intervention strategy that involved using an outreach strategy to provide minority patients with access to both stool blood test and colonoscopy screening. Finally, the coordinating team and steering committee engaged the health system patient and stakeholder advisory committee in planning for intervention implementation, thus taking up the challenge of reducing and important health disparity in patient populations served by the two health systems.

Examining the impact of a multimedia intervention on treatment decision-making among newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients: results from a nationwide RCT.

Men diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer face multiple treatment options, each with distinctive side effects that have significant implications for post-treatment quality of life. Healing Choices for Men with Prostate Cancer is a multimedia educational and decision aid program. This nation-wide randomized controlled trial evaluated the impact of Healing Choices on reducing decisional conflict and distress. Eligible prostate cancer patients who called the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service (CIS) were invited to participate. After a baseline interview, participants were randomized to usual personalized consultation with a CIS specialist (comparison condition) or CIS personalized consultation plus the Healing Choices program (intervention condition). The Decision Conflict Scale and Impact of Event Scale assessed decisional conflict about prostate cancer treatment and cancer-related distress, respectively. Analyses evaluated group differences at 2 months postenrollment. Hypothesized moderation of intervention effects by demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. The final sample consisted of N = 349 participants (intervention: n = 181; comparison n = 168). Men were on average 64 years old, primarily White, and well educated. The difference in total decisional conflict was not significant (DCS total score; F[1,311] = .99, p = .32). The difference in cancer-related distress at 2 months between the intervention and the comparison groups was not significant (F[1,337] = .01, p = .93). Evaluation of specific decision processes indicated a significant effect on levels of perceived decisional support (intervention, M = 34.8, SD = 15.7; comparison, M = 38.3, SD = 16.1; F[1,337] = 3.74, p = .05). The intervention effect was greatest for nonwhite minority participants (b = -9.65, SE = 4.67) and those with lower educational attainment (b = 3.87, SE = 2.21). This interactive, comprehensive education and decision aid program may be most effective for a subset of prostate cancer patients in need of educational and decisional support.