Breast and cervical cancer programs' success in maintaining screening during periods of high COVID-19: A qualitative multi-case study analysis.

Objective: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, most of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) funded programs (recipients) experienced significant declines in breast and cervical cancer screening volume. However, 6 recipients maintained breast and/or cervical cancer screening volume during July-December 2020 despite their states' high COVID-19 test percent positivity. We led a qualitative multi-case study to explore these recipients' actions that may have contributed to screening volume maintenance. Methods: We conducted 22 key informant interviews with recipients, screening provider sites, and partner organizations. Interviews explored organizational and operational changes; screening barriers; actions taken to help maintain screening volume; and support for provider sites to continue screening. We documented contextual factors that may have influenced these actions, including program structures; clinic capacity; and state COVID-19 policies. Results: Thematic analysis revealed crosscutting themes at the recipient, provider site, and partner levels. Recipients made changes to administrative processes to reduce burden on provider sites and delivered tailored technical assistance to support safe screening. Provider sites modified clinic protocols to increase patient safety, enhanced patient reminders for upcoming appointments, and increased patient education on the importance of timely screening during the pandemic. Partners worked with provider sites to identify and reduce patients' structural barriers to screening. Conclusion: Study findings provide lessons learned to inform emergency preparedness-focused planning and operations, as well as routine operations for NBCCEDP recipient programs, other cancer screening initiatives, primary care clinics, and chronic disease prevention 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.

Factors That Support Sustainability of Health Systems Change to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. RESULTS: Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

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

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

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.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Evaluation of a Web-Based Program for African American Young Breast Cancer Survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Among women aged <45 years, African Americans have the highest breast cancer incidence rates of any ethnic/racial group and disproportionately higher rates of mortality. Young breast cancer survivors (YBCSs) may require psychosocial and reproductive health support when navigating diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up care. To address these needs, the Young Sisters Initiative: A Guide to a Better You! Program (YSI) was developed, implemented, and evaluated. The purpose of this study was to assess implementation and fidelity; identify barriers and facilitators to implementation; and explore audience access, use, and perceived value of the YSI. METHODS: A mixed-method, process evaluation of the YSI using interviews, an online screener, and post-use survey was conducted with data collected and analyzed from February through August 2013. Thematic analysis of qualitative data was conducted without qualitative data analysis software. Survey data were analyzed using PASW Statistics, version 18. RESULTS: YSI core elements were implemented as intended. A total of 1,442 people visited the YSI website; 93% of breast cancer survivors who visited the site (and consented to be in the study) were African American; 75% of post-use survey YBCS respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the YSI; and 70% of YBCS respondents said the YSI content was somewhat or very useful. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the value of using the Internet, including social media, to provide African-American YBCSs who are newly diagnosed, in treatment, and post-treatment with reproductive and psychosocial information and support. Further implementation and evaluation of programs addressing the needs of YBCSs are needed.

Initiatives to Enhance Primary Care Delivery: Two Examples from the Field.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing demands on primary care providers have created a need for systems-level initiatives to improve primary care delivery. The purpose of this paper is to describe and present outcomes for two such initiatives: the Pennsylvania Academy of Family Physicians' Residency Program Collaborative (RPC) and the St. Johnsbury Vermont Community Health Team (CHT). METHODS: Researchers conducted case studies of the initiatives using mixed methods, including: secondary analysis of program and electronic health record data, systematic document review and interviews. RESULTS: RPC is a learning collaborative that teaches quality improvement and patient-centeredness to primary care providers, residents, clinical support staff, and administrative staff in residency programs. Results show that participation in a higher number of live learning sessions resulted in a significant increase in patient centered medical home recognition attainment and significant improvements in performance in diabetic process measures including eye exams (14.3%, p=0.004), eye referrals (13.82%, p=0.013), foot exams (15.73%, p=0.003), smoking cessation (15.83%, p=0.012), and self-management goals (25.45%, p=0.001). As a community-clinical linkages model, CHT involves primary care practices, community health workers (CHWs), and community partners. Results suggest that CHT members successfully work together to coordinate comprehensive care for the individuals they serve. Further, individuals exposed to CHWs experienced increased stability in access to health insurance (p=0.001) and prescription drugs (p=0.000), and the need for health education counseling (p=0.000). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study indicate that these two system-level strategies have the promise to improve primary care delivery. Additional research can determine the extent to which these strategies can improve other health outcomes.

A qualitative evaluation of the Avon Foundation Community Education and Outreach Initiative Patient Navigation Program.

This study presents a qualitative evaluation of the Avon Foundation Community Education and Outreach Initiative (CEOI) Patient Navigation Program. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with breast cancer patients (N = 18) of the CEOI Patient Navigation Program. Primary strengths of the program include the nature of the relationship between the patient and navigator, the availability of navigators to attend appointments, and the fact that navigators were breast cancer survivors. The process of enrolling patients into the program was a weakness. Participants described positive experiences with this program. They also identified areas of improvement that are relevant to other patient navigation programs in the US.