Practice adaptive reserve and colorectal cancer screening best practices at community health center clinics in 7 states.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing the capability of community health centers to implement best practices (BPs) may mitigate health disparities. This study investigated the association of practice adaptive reserve (PAR) with the implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening BPs at community health center clinics in 7 states. METHODS: A convenience sample of clinic staff participated in a self-administered, online survey. Eight PCMH CRC screening BPs were scored as a composite ranging from 0 to 32. The PAR composite score was scaled from 0 to 1 and then categorized into 3 levels. Multilevel analyses examined the relation between PAR and self-reported implementation of PCMH BPs. RESULTS: There were 296 respondents, and 59% reported 6 or more PCMH BPs at their clinics. The mean PAR score was 0.66 (standard deviation, 0.18), and the PCMH BP mean scores were significantly higher for respondents who reported higher clinic PAR categories. In comparison with the lowest PAR level, adjusted PCMH BP means were 25.0% higher at the middle PAR level (difference, 3.2; standard error, 1.3; t = 2.44; P = .015) and 63.2% higher at the highest PAR level (difference, 8.0; standard error, 1.9; t = 4.86; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher adaptive reserve, as measured by the PAR score, was positively associated with self-reported implementation of PCMH CRC screening BPs by clinic staff. Future research is needed to determine the PAR levels most conducive to implementing CRC screening and to develop interventions that enhance PAR in primary care settings.

The "long tail" and public health: new thinking for addressing health disparities.

The prevailing approach to improving population health focuses on shifting population means through a few targeted and universal interventions. The success of this approach for eliminating health disparities depends on an assumption about the distribution of demand for such interventions. We explored whether long tail thinking from business might yield greater progress in eliminating disparities. We examined 2011 to 2013 data from 513 state and local health agency representatives in 47 states who used an online system to create 4351 small media and client reminder products promoting colorectal cancer screening. Products in the long tail were more likely to target minority groups with higher rates of colorectal cancer and lower rates of screening than Whites. Long tail thinking could help improve the public's health and eliminate disparities.

Small media and client reminders for colorectal cancer screening: current use and gap areas in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funds 25 states and 4 tribal organizations to promote and increase colorectal cancer screening population-wide. The CRCCP grantees must use evidence-based strategies from the Guide to Community Preventive Services, including small media and client reminders. METHODS: To assess the existing resources and needs to promote colorectal cancer screening, we conducted 2 web-based surveys of CRCCP grantees and their community partners. Survey 1 sought to identify priority populations, the number and quality of existing colorectal cancer resources for different population subgroups, and the types of small media and client reminder they were most interested in using. Survey 2 assessed screening messages that were used in the past or might be used in the future, needs for non-English-language information, and preferences for screening-related terminology. RESULTS: In survey 1 (n = 125 from 26 CRCCPs), most respondents (83%) indicated they currently had some information resources for promoting screening but were widely dissatisfied with the quality and number of these resources. They reported the greatest need for resources targeting rural populations (62% of respondents), men (53%), and Hispanics (45%). In survey 2 (n = 57 from 25 CRCCPs), respondents indicated they were most likely to promote colorectal cancer screening using messages that emphasized family (95%), role models (85%), or busy lives (83%), and least likely to use messages based on faith (26%), embarrassment (25%), or fear (22%). Nearly all (85%) indicated a need for resources in languages other than English; 16 different languages were mentioned, most commonly Spanish. CONCLUSION: These findings provide the first picture of CRCCP information resources and interests, and point to specific gaps that must be addressed to help increase screening.

Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees' use of evidence-based interventions.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for adults aged 50-75 years, yet screening rates are low, especially among the uninsured. The CDC initiated the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2014. A total of 29 grantees (states and tribal organizations) receive CRCCP funding to (1) screen uninsured adults and (2) promote CRC screening at the population level. PURPOSE: CRCCP encourages grantees to use one or more of five evidence-based interventions (EBIs) recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services. The purpose of the study was to evaluate grantees' EBI use. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted in 2011 measuring grantees' use of CRC screening EBIs and identifying their implementation partners. Data were analyzed in 2012. RESULTS: Twenty-eight grantees (97%) completed the survey. Most respondents (96%) used small media. Fewer used client reminders (75%); reduction of structural barriers (50%); provider reminders (32%); or provider assessment and feedback (50%). Provider-oriented EBIs were rated as harder to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees partnered with several types of organizations to implement EBIs, many with county- or state-wide reach. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all grantees implement EBIs to promote CRC screening, but the EBIs that may have the greatest impact with CRC screening are implemented by fewer grantees in the first 2 years of the CRCCP.