LGBTQ+ cancer: priority or lip service? A qualitative content analysis of LGBTQ+ considerations in U.S. state, jurisdiction, and tribal comprehensive cancer control plans.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded program, supports cancer coalitions across the United States (US) in efforts to prevent and control cancer including development of comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans. CCC plans often focus health equity within their priorities, but it is unclear to what extent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, plus (LGBTQ+) populations are considered in CCC plans. We qualitatively examined to what extent LGBTQ+ populations were referenced in 64 U.S. state, jurisdiction, tribes, and tribal organization CCC plans. A total of 55% of CCC plans mentioned LGBTQ+ populations, however, only one in three CCC plans mentioned any kind of LGBTQ+ inequity or LGBTQ+ specific recommendations. Even fewer plans included mention of LGBTQ+ specific resources, organizations, or citations. At the same time almost three fourths of plans conflated sex and gender throughout their CCC plans. The findings of this study highlight the lack of prioritization of LGBTQ+ populations in CCC plans broadly while highlighting exemplar plans that can serve as a roadmap to more inclusive future CCC plans. Comprehensive cancer control plans can serve as a key policy and advocacy structure to promote a focus on LGBTQ+ cancer prevention and control.

Optimizing process flow diagrams to guide implementation of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in new settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. METHODS: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. RESULTS: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. CONCLUSION: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.

PURPOSE: We assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45-49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake. METHODS: In February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45-49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention. RESULTS: We mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6-17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45-49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9-22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months. CONCLUSION: CRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45-49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions.

PURPOSE: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool's potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants' preferences regarding the tool's design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. RESULTS: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool's utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. CONCLUSION: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool's utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Using systems science to advance health equity in tobacco control: a causal loop diagram of smoking.

OBJECTIVES: Develop and use a causal loop diagram (CLD) of smoking among racial/ethnic minority and lower-income groups to anticipate the intended and unintended effects of tobacco control policies. METHODS: We developed a CLD to elucidate connections between individual, environmental and structural causes of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in smoking. The CLD was informed by a review of conceptual and empirical models of smoking, fundamental cause and social stress theories and 19 qualitative interviews with tobacco control stakeholders. The CLD was then used to examine the potential impacts of three tobacco control policies. RESULTS: The CLD includes 24 constructs encompassing individual (eg, risk perceptions), environmental (eg, marketing) and structural (eg, systemic racism) factors associated with smoking. Evaluations of tobacco control policies using the CLD identified potential unintended consequences that may maintain smoking disparities. For example, the intent of a smoke-free policy for public housing is to reduce smoking among residents. Our CLD suggests that the policy may reduce smoking among residents by reducing smoking among family/friends, which subsequently reduces pro-smoking norms and perceptions of tobacco use as low risk. On the other hand, some residents who smoke may violate the policy. Policy violations may result in financial strain and/or housing instability, which increases stress and reduces feelings of control, thus having the unintended consequence of increasing smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The CLD may be used to support stakeholder engagement in action planning and to identify non-traditional partners and approaches for tobacco control.

Assessing the impact of multicomponent interventions on colorectal cancer screening through simulation: What would it take to reach national screening targets in North Carolina?

Healthy People 2020 and the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable established colorectal cancer (CRC) screening targets of 70.5% and 80%, respectively. While evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have increased CRC screening, the ability to achieve these targets at the population level remains uncertain. We simulated the impact of multicomponent interventions in North Carolina over 5 years to assess the potential for meeting national screening targets. Each intervention scenario is described as a core EBI with additional components indicated by the "+" symbol: patient navigation for screening colonoscopy (PN-for-Col+), mailed fecal immunochemical testing (MailedFIT+), MailedFIT+ targeted to Medicaid enrollees (MailedFIT + forMd), and provider assessment and feedback (PAF+). Each intervention was simulated with and without Medicaid expansion and at different levels of exposure (i.e., reach) for targeted populations. Outcomes included the percent up-to-date overall and by sociodemographic subgroups and number of CRC cases and deaths averted. Each multicomponent intervention was associated with increased CRC screening and averted both CRC cases and deaths; three had the potential to reach screening targets. PN-for-Col + achieved the 70.5% target with 97% reach after 1 year, and the 80% target with 78% reach after 5 years. MailedFIT+ achieved the 70.5% target with 74% reach after 1 year and 5 years. In the Medicaid population, assuming Medicaid expansion, MailedFIT + forMd reached the 70.5% target after 5 years with 97% reach. This study clarifies the potential for states to reach national CRC screening targets using multicomponent EBIs, but decision-makers also should consider tradeoffs in cost, reach, and ability to reduce disparities when selecting interventions.

Ten or More Cumulative Lifetime Adenomas Are Associated with Increased Risk for Advanced Neoplasia and Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines recommend frequent colonoscopies and consideration of genetic testing in individuals with ≥10 cumulative adenomas. However, it is unclear how these guidelines apply to routine practice. AIMS: We estimated the proportion of participants found to have ≥10 cumulative adenomas in a screening population and described their outcomes of advanced neoplasia (AN), CRC, and extra-colonic malignancy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of VA CSP#380, which includes 3121 veterans aged 50-75 who were followed up to 10 years after screening colonoscopy. We calculated the cumulative risk of ≥10 cumulative adenomas by Kaplan-Meier method. We compared baseline risk factors in those with and without ≥10 cumulative adenomas as well as the risk for AN (adenoma ≥1 cm, villous adenoma or high-grade dysplasia, or CRC) and extra-colonic malignancy by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The cumulative risk of ≥10 cumulative adenomas over 10.5 years was 6.51% (95% CI 4.38%-9.62%). Age 60-69 or 70-75 at baseline colonoscopy was the only factors associated with the finding of ≥10 cumulative adenomas. Compared to those with 0-9 cumulative adenomas, participants with ≥10 cumulative adenomas were more likely to have had AN (OR 17.03; 95% CI 9.41-30.84), including CRC (OR 7.00; 95% CI 2.84-17.28), but not extra-colonic malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 6.5% of participants in this screening population were found to have ≥10 cumulative adenomas over 10.5 years, which was uncommon before age 60. These participants were found to have AN and CRC significantly more often compared to those with lower cumulative adenomas.

Baseline Colonoscopy Findings Associated With 10-Year Outcomes in a Screening Cohort Undergoing Colonoscopy Surveillance.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes of ongoing colonoscopic screening and surveillance in a screening population. We aimed to determine the 10-year risk for advanced neoplasia (defined as adenomas ≥10mm, adenomas with villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, or colorectal cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outcomes. METHODS: We collected data from the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study on 3121 asymptomatic veterans (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers and were then followed for 10 years or until death. We included 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia by Kaplan-Meier curves. We then fit a longitudinal joint model to estimate risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals. RESULTS: Through 10 years of follow-up, there were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident advanced neoplasia. The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was highest among those with baseline CRC (43.7%; 95% CI 13.0%-74.4%), followed by those with baseline advanced adenoma (AA) (21.9%; 95% CI 15.7-28.1). The cumulative 10-year incidence of advanced neoplasia was 6.3% (95% CI 4.1%-8.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7%-5.4%) for baseline 1 to 2 small adenomas (<1cm, and without villous histology or high-grade dysplasia) and no neoplasia, respectively (log-rank P = .10). After adjusting for prior surveillance, the risk of advanced neoplasia at each subsequent examination was not significantly increased in veterans with 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline (odds ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.67-1.41) compared with veterans with no baseline neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia within 10 years. Individuals with only 1 or 2 small adenomas at baseline have a low risk of advanced neoplasia over 10 years. Alternative surveillance strategies, could be considered for these individuals.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening in the Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Mailed reminders to promote colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) have been shown to be effective in the Medicaid population, in which screening is underused. However, little is known regarding the cost-effectiveness of these interventions, with or without an included FIT kit. METHODS: The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of a reminder + FIT intervention versus a reminder-only intervention in increasing FIT screening. The analysis compared the costs per person screened for CRC screening associated with the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative using a 1-year time horizon. Input data for a cohort of 35,000 unscreened North Carolina Medicaid enrollees ages 52 to 64 years were derived from the trial and microcosting. Inputs and outputs were estimated from 2 perspectives-the Medicaid/state perspective and the health clinic/facility perspective-using probabilistic sensitivity analysis to evaluate uncertainty. RESULTS: The anticipated number of CRC screenings, including both FIT and screening colonoscopies, was higher for the reminder + FIT alternative (n = 8131; 23.2%) than for the reminder-only alternative (n = 5533; 15.8%). From the Medicaid/state perspective, the reminder + FIT alternative dominated the reminder-only alternative, with lower costs and higher screening rates. From the health clinic/facility perspective, the reminder + FIT versus the reminder-only alternative resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $116 per person screened. CONCLUSIONS: The reminder + FIT alternative was cost saving per additional Medicaid enrollee screened compared with the reminder-only alternative from the Medicaid/state perspective and likely cost-effective from the health clinic/facility perspective. The results also demonstrate that health departments and state Medicaid programs can efficiently mail FIT kits to large numbers of Medicaid enrollees to increase CRC screening completion.

High-Risk Adenomas at Screening Colonoscopy Remain Predictive of Future High-Risk Adenomas Despite an Intervening Negative Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data inform the current postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines, which suggest a shortened interval to third colonoscopy after a negative second examination if high-risk adenomas (HRA) were present on the initial screening colonoscopy. Therefore, we examined the risk of HRA at third colonoscopy stratified by findings on 2 previous examinations in a prospective screening colonoscopy cohort of US veterans. METHODS: We identified participants who had 3 or more colonoscopies from CSP#380. We examined the risk of HRA on the third examination based on findings from the previous 2 examinations. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for multiple covariates. RESULTS: HRA were found at the third examination in 114 (12.8%) of 891 participants. Those with HRA on both previous examinations had the greatest incidence of HRA at third examination (14/56, 25.0%). Compared with those with no adenomas on both previous examinations, participants with HRA on the first examination remained at significantly increased risk for HRA at the third examination at 3 years after a negative second examination (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-9.08), 5 years (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.49-6.61), and 7 years (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.08-7.74). DISCUSSION: In a screening population, HRA on the first examination identified individuals who remained at increased risk for HRA at the third examination, even after a negative second examination. This finding supports current colorectal cancer surveillance guidelines, which suggest a shortened, 5-year time interval to third colonoscopy after a negative second examination if high-risk findings were present on the baseline examination.

Advanced neoplasia in Veterans at screening colonoscopy using the National Cancer Institute Risk Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Adapting screening strategy to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk may improve efficiency for all stakeholders however limited tools for such risk stratification exist. Colorectal cancers usually evolve from advanced neoplasms that are present for years. We applied the National Cancer Institute (NCI) CRC Risk Assessment Tool, which calculates future risk of CRC, to determine whether it could be used to predict current advanced neoplasia (AN) in a veteran cohort undergoing a baseline screening colonoscopy. METHODS: This was a prospective assessment of the relationship between future CRC risk predicted by the NCI tool, and the presence of AN at screening colonoscopy. Family, medical, dietary and physical activity histories were collected at the time of screening colonoscopy and used to calculate absolute CRC risk at 5, 10 and 20 years. Discriminatory accuracy was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3121 veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy, 94% had complete data available to calculate risk (N = 2934, median age 63 years, 100% men, and 15% minorities). Prevalence of AN at baseline screening colonoscopy was 11 % (N = 313). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 5 years, AN prevalences were 6.54% (95% CI, 4.99, 8.09), 11.26% (95% CI, 9.28-13.24), and 14.21% (95% CI, 12.02-16.40). For tertiles of estimated risk at 10 years, the prevalences were 6.34% (95% CI, 4.81-7.87), 11.25% (95% CI, 9.27-13.23), and 14.42% (95% CI, 12.22-16.62). For tertiles of estimated absolute CRC risk at 20 years, current AN prevalences were 7.54% (95% CI, 5.75-9.33), 10.53% (95% CI, 8.45-12.61), and 12.44% (95% CI, 10.2-14.68). The area under the curve for predicting current AN was 0.60 (95% CI; 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 5 years, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.57-0.63, p < 0.0001) at 10 years and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.54-0.61, p < 0.0001) at 20 years. CONCLUSION: The NCI tool had modest discriminatory function for estimating the presence of current advanced neoplasia in veterans undergoing a first screening colonoscopy. These findings are comparable to other clinically utilized cancer risk prediction models and may be used to inform the benefit-risk assessment of screening, particularly for patients with competing comorbidities and lower risk, for whom a non-invasive screening approach is preferred.

Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be effectively prevented or detected with guideline concordant screening, yet Medicaid enrollees experience disparities. We used microsimulation to project CRC screening patterns, CRC cases averted, and life-years gained in the population of 68,077 Oregon Medicaid enrollees 50-64 over a five year period starting in January 2019. The simulation estimated the cost-effectiveness of five intervention scenarios - academic detailing plus provider audit and feedback (Detailing+), patient reminders (Reminders), mailing a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) directly to the patient's home (Mailed FIT), patient navigation (Navigation), and mailed FIT with Navigation (Mailed FIT + Navigation) - compared to usual care. Each intervention scenario raised CRC screening rates compared to usual care, with improvements as high as 11.6 percentage points (Mailed FIT + Navigation) and as low as 2.5 percentage points (Reminders) after one year. Compared to usual care, Mailed FIT + Navigation would raise CRC screening rates 20.2 percentage points after five years - averting nearly 77 cancer cases (a reduction of 113 per 100,000) and exceeding national screening targets. Over a five year period, Reminders, Mailed FIT and Mailed FIT + Navigation were expected to be cost effective if stakeholders were willing to pay $230 or less per additional year up-to-date (at a cost of $22, $59, and $227 respectively), whereas Detailing+ and Navigation were more costly for the same benefits. To approach national CRC screening targets, health system stakeholders are encouraged to implement Mailed FIT with or without Navigation and Reminders.

Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis.

Although screening is effective in reducing incidence, mortality, and costs of treating colorectal cancer (CRC), it remains underutilized, in part due to limited insurance access. We used microsimulation to estimate the health and financial effects of insurance expansion and reduction scenarios in North Carolina (NC). We simulated the full lifetime of a simulated population of 3,298,265 residents age-eligible for CRC screening (ages 50-75) during a 5-year period starting January 1, 2018, including polyp incidence and progression and CRC screening, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. Insurance scenarios included: status quo, which in NC includes access to the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); no ACA; NC Medicaid expansion, and Medicare-for-all. The insurance expansion scenarios would increase percent up-to-date with screening by 0.3 and 7.1 percentage points for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all, respectively, while insurance reduction would reduce percent up-to-date by 1.1 percentage points, compared to the status quo (51.7% up-to-date), at the end of the 5-year period. Throughout these individuals' lifetimes, this change in CRC screening/testing results in an estimated 498 CRC cases averted with Medicaid expansion and 6031 averted with Medicare-for-all, and an additional 1782 cases if health insurance gains associated with ACA are lost. Estimated cost savings - balancing increased CRC screening/testing costs against decreased cancer treatment costs - are approximately $30 M and $970 M for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all scenarios, respectively, compared to status quo. Insurance expansion is likely to improve CRC screening both overall and in underserved populations while saving money, with the largest savings realized by Medicare.

Colorectal cancer screening in newly insured Medicaid members: a review of concurrent federal and state policies.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is underutilized by Medicaid enrollees and the uninsured. Multiple national and state policies were enacted from 2010 to 2014 to increase access to Medicaid and to promote CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. We aimed to determine the impact of these policies on screening initiation among newly enrolled Oregon Medicaid beneficiaries age-eligible for CRC screening. METHODS: We identified national and state policies affecting Medicaid coverage and preventive services in Oregon during 2010-2014. We used Oregon Medicaid claims data from 2010 to 2015 to conduct a cohort analysis of enrollees who turned 50 and became age-eligible for CRC screening (a prevention milestone, and an age at which guideline-concordant screening can be assessed within a single year) during each year from 2010 to 2014. We calculated risk ratios to assess whether first year of Medicaid enrollment and/or year turned 50 was associated with CRC screening initiation. RESULTS: We identified 14,576 Oregon Medicaid enrollees who turned 50 during 2010-2014; 2429 (17%) completed CRC screening within 12 months after turning 50. Individuals newly enrolled in Medicaid in 2013 or 2014 were 1.58 and 1.31 times more likely, respectively, to initiate CRC screening than those enrolled by 2010. A primary care visit in the calendar year, having one or more chronic conditions, and being Hispanic was also associated with CRC screening initiation. DISCUSSION: The increased uptake of CRC screening in 2013 and 2014 is associated with the timing of policies such as Medicaid expansion, enhanced federal matching for preventive services offered to Medicaid enrollees without cost sharing, and formation of Medicaid accountable care organizations, which included CRC screening as an incentivized quality metric.

Reach and effectiveness of a centralized navigation program for patients with positive fecal immunochemical tests requiring follow-up colonoscopy.

Completion rates for follow-up colonoscopies after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are suboptimal in federally qualified health center (FQHC) settings. We implemented a screening intervention that included mailed FIT outreach to North Carolina FQHC patients from June 2020 to September 2021 and centralized patient navigation to support patients with abnormal FITs in completing follow-up colonoscopy. We evaluated the reach and effectiveness of navigation using electronic medical record data and navigator call logs detailing interactions with patients. Reach assessments included the proportion of patients successfully contacted by phone and who agreed to participate in navigation, intensity of navigation provided (including types of barriers to colonoscopy identified and total navigation time), and differences in these measures by socio-demographic characteristics. Effectiveness outcomes included colonoscopy completion, timeliness of follow-up colonoscopy (i.e., within 9 months), and bowel prep adequacy. Among 514 patients who completed a mailed FIT, 38 patients had an abnormal result and were eligible for navigation. Of these, 26 (68%) accepted navigation, 7 (18%) declined, and 5 (13%) could not be contacted. Among navigated patients, 81% had informational needs, 38% had emotional barriers, 35% had financial barriers, 12% had transportation barriers, and 42% had multiple barriers to colonoscopy. Median navigation time was 48.5 min (range: 24-277 min). Colonoscopy completion differed across groups - 92% of those accepting navigation completed colonoscopy within 9 months, versus 43% for those declining navigation. We found that centralized navigation was widely accepted in FQHC patients with abnormal FIT, and was an effective strategy, resulting in high colonoscopy completion rates.

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.

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.

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.

Development of a Multi-Study Repository to Support Research on Veteran Health: The VA Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center-Durham (CSPEC-Durham) Data and Specimen Repository.

Federal agencies, including the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), have prioritized improved access to scientific data and results collected through federally funded research. Our VA Cooperative Studies Program Epidemiology Center in Durham, North Carolina (CSPEC-Durham) assembled a repository of data and specimens collected through multiple studies on Veteran health issues to facilitate future research in these areas. We developed a single protocol, request process that includes scientific and ethical review of all applications, and a database architecture using metadata (common variable descriptors) to securely store and share data across diverse studies. In addition, we created a mechanism to allow data and specimens collected through older studies in which re-use was not addressed in the study protocol or consent forms to be shared if the future research is within the scope of the original consent. Our CSPEC-Durham Data and Specimen Repository currently includes research data, genomic data, and study specimens (e.g., DNA, blood) for three content areas: colorectal cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Gulf War research. The linking of the study specimens and research data can support additional genetic analyses and related research to improve Veterans' health.