Understanding quality improvement collaboratives through an implementation science lens.

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have long been used to facilitate group learning and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in healthcare. However, few studies systematically describe implementation strategies linked to QIC success. To address this gap, we evaluated a QIC on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) by aligning standardized implementation strategies with collaborative activities and measuring implementation and effectiveness outcomes. In 2018, the American Cancer Society and North Carolina Community Health Center Association provided funding, in-person/virtual training, facilitation, and audit and feedback with the goal of building FQHC capacity to enact selected implementation strategies. The QIC evaluation plan included a pre-test/post-test single group design and mixed methods data collection. We assessed: 1) adoption, 2) engagement, 3) implementation of QI tools and CRC screening EBIs, and 4) changes in CRC screening rates. A post-collaborative focus group captured participants' perceptions of implementation strategies. Twenty-three percent of North Carolina FQHCs (9/40) participated in the collaborative. Health Center engagement was high although individual participation decreased over time. Teams completed all four QIC tools: aim statements, process maps, gap and root cause analysis, and Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. FQHCs increased their uptake of evidence-based CRC screening interventions and rates increased 8.0% between 2017 and 2018. Focus group findings provided insights into participants' opinions regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of the implementation strategies and how they influenced outcomes. Results support the collaborative's positive impact on FQHC capacity to implement QI tools and EBIs to improve CRC screening rates.

Examining connections between screening for breast, cervical and prostate cancer and colorectal cancer screening.

AIM: To compare participation in breast, cervical and prostate cancer screening with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. MATERIALS & METHODS: This random digit-dialed survey includes participants (aged 50-75 years) from South Carolina (USA). Past participation information in fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, mammography, clinical breast examination, Pap test, prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination was obtained.Adjusted odds ratios are reported. RESULTS: Among European-American women, any cervical or breast cancer screening was associated with adherence to any CRC screening. Among African-American women, mammography was associated with adherence to any CRC screening. Digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests were associated with adherence to any CRC screening test among all men. CONCLUSION: Future research should explore approaches inclusive of cancer screening recommendations for multiple cancer types for reduction of cancer screening disparities.

Relationship of colorectal cancer awareness and knowledge with colorectal cancer screening.

AIM: The aim was to describe the association of awareness and knowledge with participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. MATERIALS & METHODS: Telephone survey research was conducted with South Carolina (USA) residents aged 50-75 years using a 144-item instrument. Data were analyzed with SAS and Stata. Adjusted odds ratios are reported. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 1302) had heard of CRC screening (96%) and exhibited high levels of CRC awareness and knowledge; only 74% had ever been screened. Higher levels of knowledge were associated with a greater likelihood of having ever been screened (odds ratio: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02-1.41; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Results showed high levels of awareness and knowledge, but modest participation in CRC. Transforming awareness and knowledge into CRC screening participation should be a priority.