Understanding disruptions in cancer care to reduce increased cancer burden.

Background: This study seeks to understand how and for whom COVID-19 disrupted cancer care to understand the potential for cancer health disparities across the cancer prevention and control continuum. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, participants age 30+residing in an 82-county region in Missouri and Illinois completed an online survey from June-August 2020. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables separately and by care disruption status. Logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the correlates of care disruption. Results: Participants (N=680) reported 21% to 57% of cancer screening or treatment appointments were canceled/postponed from March 2020 through the end of 2020. Approximately 34% of residents stated they would need to know if their doctor's office is taking the appropriate COVID-related safety precautions to return to care. Higher education (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.11-1.43), identifying as female (OR = 1.60, 95% CI:1.12-2.30), experiencing more discrimination in healthcare settings (OR = 1.40, 95% CI:1.13-1.72), and having scheduled a telehealth appointment (OR = 1.51, 95% CI:1.07-2.15) were associated with higher odds of care disruption. Factors associated with care disruption were not consistent across races. Higher odds of care disruption for White residents were associated with higher education, female identity, older age, and having scheduled a telehealth appointment, while higher odds of care disruption for Black residents were associated only with higher education. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the factors associated with cancer care disruption and what patients need to return to care. Results may inform outreach and engagement strategies to reduce delayed cancer screenings and encourage returning to cancer care. Funding: This study was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Administrative Supplements for P30 Cancer Center Support Grants (P30CA091842-18S2 and P30CA091842-19S4). Kia L. Davis, Lisa Klesges, Sarah Humble, and Bettina Drake were supported by the National Cancer Institute's P50CA244431 and Kia L. Davis was also supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Callie Walsh-Bailey was supported by NIMHD T37 MD014218. The content does not necessarily represent the official view of these funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Protocol for a scoping review of health equity frameworks and models applied in empirical studies of chronic disease prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases, such as cancers and cardiovascular diseases, present the greatest burden of morbidity and mortality worldwide. This burden disproportionately affects historically marginalized populations. Health equity is rapidly gaining increased attention in public health, health services, and implementation research, though many health inequities persist. Health equity frameworks and models (FM) have been called upon to guide equity-focused chronic disease and implementation research. However, there is no clear synthesis of the health equity FM used in chronic disease research or how these are applied in empirical studies. This scoping review seeks to fill this gap by identifying and characterizing health equity FM applied in empirical studies along the chronic disease prevention and control continuum, describing how these FM are used, and exploring potential applications to the field of implementation science. METHODS: We follow established guidance for conducting scoping reviews, which includes six stages: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify relevant studies; (3) select studies for inclusion; (4) data extraction; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; and (6) consultation. This protocol presents the iterative, collaborative approach taken to conceptualize this study and develop the search strategy. We describe the criteria for inclusion in this review, methods for conducting two phases of screening (title and abstract, full text), data extraction procedures, and quality assurance approaches taken throughout the project. DISCUSSION: The findings from this review will inform health-equity focused chronic disease prevention and control research. FM identified through this review will be added to an existing website summarizing dissemination and implementation science frameworks, and we will offer case examples and recommendations for utilizing a health equity FM in empirical studies. Our search strategy and review methodology may serve as an example for scholars seeking to conduct reviews of health equity FM in other health disciplines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SFVE6.

Investigating implementation of school health policies through a health equity lens: A measures development study protocol.

Background: School-based policies that ensure provision of nutrition, physical activity, and other health-promoting resources and opportunities are essential in mitigating health disparities among underserved populations. Measuring the implementation of such policies is imperative to bridge the gap between policy and practice. Unfortunately, limited practical, psychometrically strong measures of school policy implementation exist. Few available explicitly focus on the issues of equity and social justice as a key component of implementation, which may result in underassessment of the equity implications of policy implementation. The purpose of this study is to develop equity-focused measures in collaboration with practitioners, researchers, and other key implementation partners that will facilitate evaluation of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators), processes, and outcomes. Methods: We will actively seek engagement from practitioners, researchers, and advocacy partners (i.e., stakeholders) who have expertise in school health policy throughout each phase of this project. We propose a multi-phase, 1-year project comprising the following steps: (1) selection of relevant constructs from guiding frameworks related to health equity and implementation science; (2) initial measure development, including expert feedback on draft items; (3) pilot cognitive testing with representatives from key target populations (i.e., school administrators, teachers, food service staff, and students and parents/guardians); and (4) measure refinement based on testing and assessment of pragmatic properties. These steps will allow us to establish initial face and content validity of a set of instruments that can undergo psychometric testing in future studies to assess their reliability and validity. Discussion: Completion of this project will result in several school policy implementation measurement tools which can be readily used by practitioners and researchers to evaluate policy implementation through a health equity lens. This will provide opportunities for better assessment and accountability of policies that aim to advance health equity among school-aged children and their families. Trial registration: Open Science Framework Registration doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/736ZU.

Social Risk Factors and Desire for Assistance Among Patients Receiving Subsidized Health Care Insurance in a US-Based Integrated Delivery System.

PURPOSE: Because social conditions such as food insecurity and housing instability shape health outcomes, health systems are increasingly screening for and addressing patients' social risks. This study documented the prevalence of social risks and examined the desire for assistance in addressing those risks in a US-based integrated delivery system. METHODS: A survey was administered to Kaiser Permanente members on subsidized exchange health insurance plans (2018-2019). The survey included questions about 4 domains of social risks, desire for help, and attitudes. We conducted a descriptive analysis and estimated multivariate modified Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 438 participants, 212 (48%) reported at least 1 social risk factor. Housing instability was the most common (70%) factor reported. Members with social risks reported more discomfort being screened for social risks (14.2% vs 5.4%; P = .002) than those without risks, although 90% of participants believed that health systems should assist in addressing social risks. Among those with 1-2 social risks, however, only 27% desired assistance. Non-Hispanic Black participants who reported a social risk were more than twice as likely to desire assistance compared with non-Hispanic White participants (adjusted relative risk [RR] 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Athough most survey participants believed health systems have a role in addressing social risks, a minority of those reporting a risk wanted assistance and reported more discomfort being screened for risk factors than those without risks. Health systems should work to increase the comfort of patients in reporting risks, explore how to successfully assist them when desired, and offer resources to address these risks outside the health care sector.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Few validated assessment tools are available to increase understanding and measure factors associated with sustainment of clinical practices, an increasingly recognized need among clinicians. We describe the development of the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT), designed to assess factors that contribute to sustainable practices in clinical settings. METHODS: Sixty-four participants from clinical and research fields participated in concept mapping and were recruited to brainstorm factors that lead to sustained clinical practices. Once repeated factors were removed, participants sorted items based on similarity and rated them by importance and feasibility. Using concept mapping analyses, items were grouped into meaningful domains to develop an initial tool. We then recruited pilot sites and early adopters, for a total of 286 practicing clinicians, to pilot and evaluate the tool. Individuals were recruited from clinical settings across pediatric and adult medical and surgical subspecialties. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test hypothesized subscale structure in the instrument. We used root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) to assess fit and thus the ability of CSAT to measure the identified domains. RESULTS: The concept mapping produced sorted statements that were edited into items that could be responded to, resulting in the creation of a tool with seven determinant domains and 47 items. The pilot and CFA testing resulted in a final CSAT instrument made up 35 items, five per domain. CFA results demonstrated very good fit of the seven domain structure of the CSAT (RMSEA = 0.049; SRMR = 0.049). Usability testing indicated the CSAT is brief, easy to use, easy to learn, and does not require extensive training. Additionally, the measure scored highly (18/20) on the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The seven final CSAT domains were engaged staff and leadership, engaged stakeholders, organizational readiness, workflow integration, implementation and training, monitoring and evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The CSAT is a new reliable assessment tool which allows for greater practical and scientific understanding of contextual factors that enable sustainable clinical practices over time.

Strengthening methods for tracking adaptations and modifications to implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Developing effective implementation strategies requires adequate tracking and reporting on their application. Guidelines exist for defining and reporting on implementation strategy characteristics, but not for describing how strategies are adapted and modified in practice. We built on existing implementation science methods to provide novel methods for tracking strategy modifications. METHODS: These methods were developed within a stepped-wedge trial of an implementation strategy package designed to help community clinics adopt social determinants of health-related activities: in brief, an 'Implementation Support Team' supports clinics through a multi-step process. These methods involve five components: 1) describe planned strategy; 2) track its use; 3) monitor barriers; 4) describe modifications; and 5) identify / describe new strategies. We used the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy to categorize strategies, Proctor et al.'s reporting framework to describe them, the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to code barriers / contextual factors necessitating modifications, and elements of the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Enhanced to describe strategy modifications. RESULTS: We present three examples of the use of these methods: 1) modifications made to a facilitation-focused strategy (clinics reported that certain meetings were too frequent, so their frequency was reduced in subsequent wedges); 2) a clinic-level strategy addition which involved connecting one study clinic seeking help with community health worker-related workflows to another that already had such a workflow in place; 3) a study-level strategy addition which involved providing assistance in overcoming previously encountered (rather than de novo) challenges. CONCLUSIONS: These methods for tracking modifications made to implementation strategies build on existing methods, frameworks, and guidelines; however, as none of these were a perfect fit, we made additions to several frameworks as indicated, and used certain frameworks' components selectively. While these methods are time-intensive, and more work is needed to streamline them, they are among the first such methods presented to implementation science. As such, they may be used in research on assessing effective strategy modifications and for replication and scale-up of effective strategies. We present these methods to guide others seeking to document implementation strategies and modifications to their studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03607617 (first posted 31/07/2018).

Comparing the performance of two social risk screening tools in a vulnerable subpopulation.

BACKGROUND: Research shows the profound impact of social factors on health, lead many healths systems to incorporate social risk screening. To help healthcare systems select among various screening tools we compared two tools, the Your Current Life Situation (YCLS) and the Accountable Health Communities (AHC) Screening tools, on key psychometric properties. METHOD: Kaiser Permanente Southern California subsidized exchange members (n = 1008) were randomly invited to complete a survey containing either the YCLS or the AHC tool, as well as other measures related to care experience and health. Healthcare use was measured through the electronic health record. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS was assessed using adjusted kappas for six domains (food - worry, food - pay, insecure housing, housing quality, transportation, utilities). To assess predictive validity, items on the AHC and YCLS were compared to self-rated health and receipt of a flu shot. RESULTS: Responders (n = 450) and non-responders (n = 558) significantly differed on sex, language, and depression (P < 0.05) but not anxiety, race/ethnicity, or healthcare use. Agreement between the AHC and YCLS tools was substantial on all items (kappas > 0.60) except for housing quality (kappa 0.52). Four out of six screening questions on the AHC tool and four out of seven on the YCLS tool were associated with self-rated health (P < 0.03). No social needs were associated with flu shot receipt except utilities on the AHC tool (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: In this sample, the AHC and YCLS tools are similar in their ability to screen for social risks. Differences observed likely stem from the timeframe and wording of the questions, which can be used to guide selection in healthcare systems.

A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms of implementation strategies (i.e., the processes by which strategies produce desired effects) is important for research to understand why a strategy did or did not achieve its intended effect, and it is important for practice to ensure strategies are designed and selected to directly target determinants or barriers. This study is a systematic review to characterize how mechanisms are conceptualized and measured, how they are studied and evaluated, and how much evidence exists for specific mechanisms. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and CINAHL Plus for implementation studies published between January 1990 and August 2018 that included the terms "mechanism," "mediator," or "moderator." Two authors independently reviewed title and abstracts and then full texts for fit with our inclusion criteria of empirical studies of implementation in health care contexts. Authors extracted data regarding general study information, methods, results, and study design and mechanisms-specific information. Authors used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess study quality. RESULTS: Search strategies produced 2277 articles, of which 183 were included for full text review. From these we included for data extraction 39 articles plus an additional seven articles were hand-entered from only other review of implementation mechanisms (total = 46 included articles). Most included studies employed quantitative methods (73.9%), while 10.9% were qualitative and 15.2% were mixed methods. Nine unique versions of models testing mechanisms emerged. Fifty-three percent of the studies met half or fewer of the quality indicators. The majority of studies (84.8%) only met three or fewer of the seven criteria stipulated for establishing mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers have undertaken a multitude of approaches to pursue mechanistic implementation research, but our review revealed substantive conceptual, methodological, and measurement issues that must be addressed in order to advance this critical research agenda. To move the field forward, there is need for greater precision to achieve conceptual clarity, attempts to generate testable hypotheses about how and why variables are related, and use of concrete behavioral indicators of proximal outcomes in the case of quantitative research and more directed inquiry in the case of qualitative research.

Psychometric and Pragmatic Properties of Social Risk Screening Tools: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Health systems increasingly are exploring implementation of standardized social risk assessments. Implementation requires screening tools both with evidence of validity and reliability (psychometric properties) and that are low cost, easy to administer, readable, and brief (pragmatic properties). These properties for social risk assessment tools are not well understood and could help guide selection of assessment tools and future research. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review was conducted during 2018 and included literature from PubMed and CINAHL published between 2000 and May 18, 2018. Included studies were based in the U.S., included tools that addressed at least 2 social risk factors (economic stability, education, social and community context, healthcare access, neighborhood and physical environment, or food), and were administered in a clinical setting. Manual literature searching was used to identify empirical uses of included screening tools. Data on psychometric and pragmatic properties of each tool were abstracted. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Review of 6,838 unique citations yielded 21 unique screening tools and 60 articles demonstrating empirical uses of the included screening tools. Data on psychometric properties were sparse, and few tools reported use of gold standard measurement development methods. Review of pragmatic properties indicated that tools were generally low cost, written for low-literacy populations, and easy to administer. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple low-cost, low literacy tools are available for social risk screening in clinical settings, but psychometric data are very limited. More research is needed on clinic-based screening tool reliability and validity as these factors should influence both adoption and utility. SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION: This article is part of a supplement entitled Identifying and Intervening on Social Needs in Clinical Settings: Evidence and Evidence Gaps, which is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Kaiser Permanente, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study.

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.