Findings From a National Survey of Older US Adults on Patient Willingness to Use Telehealth Services: Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth (telemedicine and telepharmacy) services increase access to patient services and ensure continuity of care. However, few studies have assessed factors that influence patients' willingness to use telehealth services, and we sought to investigate this. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine respondents' (aged between 45 and 75 years) willingness to use telehealth services (telepharmacy and telemedicine) and the correlates of the willingness to use telehealth services. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional national survey of 1045 noninstitutionalized US adults aged between 45 and 75 years in March and April 2021. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify demographic and health service use correlates of self-reported willingness to use telehealth services. RESULTS: Overall willingness to use telemedicine was high (674/1045, 64.5%). Adults aged 55 years and older were less willing to use telemedicine (aged between 55 and 64 years: odds ratio [OR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.86; aged 65 years or older: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49) than those younger than 55 years. Those with a regular provider (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1-1.02) and long travel times (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.03-2.98) were more willing to use telemedicine compared to those without a regular provider and had shorter travel times, respectively. Willingness to use telemedicine services increased from 64.5% (674/1045) to 83% (867/1045) if the service was low-cost or insurance-covered, was with their existing health care provider, or was easy-to-use. Overall willingness to use telepharmacy was 76.7% (801/1045). Adults aged older than 55 years were less willing to use telepharmacy (aged between 55 and 64 years: OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.86; aged 65 years or older: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.15-0.37) than those younger than 55 years. Those who rated pharmacy service quality higher were more willing to use telepharmacy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03-1.09) than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents were generally willing to use telehealth (telemedicine and telepharmacy) services, but the likelihood of their being willing to use telehealth decreased as they were older. For those initially unwilling (aged 55 years or older) to use telemedicine services, inexpensive or insurance-covered services were acceptable.

Colorectal cancer screening knowledge among community pharmacists: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce CRC morbidity and mortality. Community pharmacies could be a viable option for delivering home-based CRC screening tests such as fecal immunochemical tests (FITs). However, little is known about community pharmacists' knowledge about CRC screening guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We assessed community pharmacists' knowledge about CRC screening to identify education and training needs for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. METHODS: Between September 2022 and January 2023, we conducted an online national survey of community pharmacists practicing in the United States. Responders were eligible if they were currently-licensed community pharmacists and currently practiced in the United States. The survey assessed knowledge of national CRC screening guidelines, including recommended starting age, frequency of screening, different screening modalities, and follow-up care. Using multiple linear regression, we evaluated correlates of community pharmacists' level of CRC screening knowledge, defined as the total number of knowledge questions answered correctly from "0" (no questions correct) to "5" (all questions correct). RESULTS: A total of 578 eligible community pharmacists completed the survey, with a response rate of 59%. Most community pharmacists correctly answered the question about the next steps following a positive FIT (87%) and the question about where a FIT can be done (84%). A minority of community pharmacists responded correctly to questions about the age to start screening with FIT (34%) and how often a FIT should be repeated (28%). Only 5% of pharmacists answered all knowledge questions correctly. Community pharmacists answered more CRC screening knowledge questions correctly as their years in practice increased. Board-certified community pharmacists answered more CRC screening knowledge questions correctly compared to those who were not board-certified. CONCLUSION: To ensure the successful implementation of a pharmacy-based CRC screening program, community pharmacists need to be educated about CRC screening and trained to ensure comprehensive patient counseling and preventive service delivery.

Principles to operationalize equity in cancer research and health outcomes: lessons learned from the cancer prevention and control research network.

Reflecting their commitment to advancing health equity, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) established a Health Equity Workgroup to identify and distill guiding principles rooted in health equity, community-engaged participatory research (CBPR), social determinants of health, and racial equity frameworks to guide its collective work. The Health Equity Workgroup utilized a multi-phase, participatory consensus-building approach to: (1) identify recurrent themes in health and racial equity frameworks; (2) capture perspectives on and experiences with health equity research among CPCRN members through an online survey; (3) engage in activities to discuss and refine the guiding principles; and (4) collect case examples of operationalizing equity principles in cancer research. Representatives from all CPCRN centers endorsed nine core principles to guide the Network's strategic plan: (1) Engage in power-sharing and capacity building with partners; (2) Address community priorities through community engagement and co-creation of research; (3) Explore and address the systems and structural root causes of cancer disparities; (4) Build a system of accountability between research and community partners; (5) Establish transparent relationships with community partners; (6) Prioritize the sustainability of research benefits for community partners; (7) Center racial equity in cancer prevention and control research; (8) Engage in equitable data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination practices; and (9) Integrate knowledge translation, implementation, and dissemination into research plans. Dissemination products, such as toolkits and technical assistance workshops, reflecting these principles will foster knowledge transfer to intentionally integrate health and racial equity principles in cancer prevention and control research.

Patient preferences for the design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

PURPOSE: To assess preferences for design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (PharmFIT™) among screening-eligible adults in the United States (US) and explore the impact of rurality on pharmacy use patterns (e.g., pharmacy type, prescription pick-up preference, service quality rating). METHODS: We conducted a national online survey of non-institutionalized US adults through panels managed by Qualtrics, a survey research company. A total of 1,045 adults (response rate 62%) completed the survey between March and April 2021. Sampling quotas matched respondents to the 2010 US Census and oversampled rural residents. We assessed pharmacy use patterns by rurality and design preferences for learning about PharmFIT™; receiving a FIT kit from a pharmacy; and completing and returning the FIT kit. RESULTS: Pharmacy use patterns varied, with some notable differences across rurality. Rural respondents used local, independently owned pharmacies more than non-rural respondents (20.4%, 6.3%, p < 0.001) and rated pharmacy service quality higher than non-rural respondents. Non-rural respondents preferred digital communication to learn about PharmFIT™ (36% vs 47%; p < 0.001) as well as digital FIT counseling (41% vs 49%; p = 0.02) more frequently than rural participants. Preferences for receiving and returning FITs were associated with pharmacy use patterns: respondents who pick up prescriptions in-person preferred to get their FIT (OR 7.7; 5.3-11.2) and return it in-person at the pharmacy (OR 1.7; 1.1-2.4). CONCLUSION: Pharmacies are highly accessible and could be useful for expanding access to CRC screening services. Local context and pharmacy use patterns should be considered in the design and implementation of PharmFIT™.

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).

Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.

PURPOSE: To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond. CONCLUSION: CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

Prioritizing rural populations in state comprehensive cancer control plans: a qualitative assessment.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP) requires that states develop comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans and recommends that disparities related to rural residence are addressed in these plans. The objective of this study was to explore rural partner engagement and describe effective strategies for incorporating a rural focus in CCC plans. METHODS: States were selected for inclusion using stratified sampling based on state rurality and region. State cancer control leaders were interviewed about facilitators and barriers to engaging rural partners and strategies for prioritizing rural populations. Content analysis was conducted to identify themes across states. RESULTS: Interviews (n = 30) revealed themes in three domains related to rural inclusion in CCC plans. The first domain (barriers) included (1) designing CCC plans to be broad, (2) defining "rural populations," and (3) geographic distance. The second domain (successful strategies) included (1) collaborating with rural healthcare systems, (2) recruiting rural constituents, (3) leveraging rural community-academic partnerships, and (4) working jointly with Native nations. The third domain (strategies for future plan development) included (1) building relationships with rural communities, (2) engaging rural constituents in planning, (3) developing a better understanding of rural needs, and (4) considering resources for addressing rural disparities. CONCLUSION: Significant relationship building with rural communities, resource provision, and successful strategies used by others may improve inclusion of rural needs in state comprehensive cancer control plans and ultimately help plan developers directly address rural cancer health disparities.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. CONCLUSION: If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Self-Collection for Primary HPV Testing: Perspectives on Implementation From Federally Qualified Health Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Primary testing for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) by self-collection could result in higher rates of cervical cancer screening. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in the US serve a large proportion of women who have low income and no health insurance and are medically underserved - risk factors for being insufficiently screened for cervical cancer. Although the implementation of self-collection for HPV testing is not yet widespread, health care entities need to prepare for its eventual approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. We conducted focus groups and interviews among clinical and administrative staff and leadership to gather data on key logistical concerns that must be addressed before implementing self-collection for HPV testing in FQHCs. METHODS: We identified focus group and interview participants from 6 FQHCs in North Carolina. We conducted focus groups with clinical and administrative staff (N = 45) and semistructured interviews with chief executive officers, senior-level administrators, chief medical officers, and clinical data managers (N = 24). Transcripts were coded by using codebooks derived from research questions and notes taken during data collection. Themes emerged on implementation of self-collection for HPV testing. We applied the constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to themes to identify domains of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation. RESULTS: Clinical personnel reported that offering self-collection for HPV testing is acceptable and feasible and can increase cervical cancer screening rates. Uncertainties emerged about accuracy of results, workflow disruptions, financial implications, and effects on clinic quality measures. CONCLUSION: Implementing self-collection for HPV testing was considered feasible and acceptable by participants. However, important health service delivery considerations, including financial implications, must be addressed before integrating self-collection for HPV testing into the standard of care.

How cancer programs identify and address the financial burdens of rural cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is associated with negative patient outcomes, and rural populations are disproportionately affected by the high costs of cancer care compared to urban populations. Our objective was to (1) understand cancer programs' perceptions of rural-urban differences in cancer patients' experiences of financial hardship, (2) evaluate the resources available to cancer patients across the rural-urban continuum, and (3) determine how rural and urban health care teams assess and address financial distress in cancer patients. METHODS: Seven research teams within the Cancer Prevention and Research Control Network conducted semi-structured interviews with cancer program staff who have a role in connecting cancer patients with financial assistance services in both rural and urban counties. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. We identified themes using descriptive content and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 35 staffs across 29 cancer care programs in seven states, with roughly half of respondents from programs in rural counties. Participants identified differences in rural and urban patients' experiences of financial hardship related to distance required to travel for treatment, underinsurance, and low socioeconomic status. Insufficient staffing was an identified barrier to addressing rural and urban patients' financial concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Improved financial navigation services could mitigate the effects of financial toxicity experienced by cancer patients, particularly rural patients, throughout treatment and survivorship. Future research is needed to improve how cancer programs assess financial hardship in patients and to expand financial navigation services to better serve rural cancer patients.

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.

Behavioral and mental health risk factor profiles among diverse primary care patients.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions and Implementation Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

While colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been increasing in the general population, rates are considerably lower in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which serve a large proportion of uninsured and medically vulnerable patients. Efforts to screen eligible patients must be accelerated if we are to reach the national screening goal of 80% by 2018 and beyond. To inform this work, we conducted a survey of key informants at FQHCs in eight states to determine which evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to promote CRC screening are currently being used, and which implementation strategies are being employed to ensure that the interventions are executed as intended. One hundred and forty-eight FQHCs were invited to participate in the study, and 56 completed surveys were received for a response rate of 38%. Results demonstrated that provider reminder and recall systems were the most commonly used EBIs (44.6%) while the most commonly used implementation strategy was the identification of barriers (84.0%). The mean number of EBIs that were fully implemented at the centers was 2.4 (range 0-7) out of seven. Almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that their FQHCs were not using any EBIs to increase CRC screening. Full implementation of EBIs was correlated with higher CRC screening rates. These findings identify gaps as well as the preferences and needs of FQHCs in selecting and implementing EBIs for CRC screening.

Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers.

INTRODUCTION: Practice facilitation involves trained individuals working with practice staff to conduct quality improvement activities and support delivery of evidence-based clinical services. We examined the feasibility of using practice facilitation to assist federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in North Carolina. METHODS: The intervention consisted of 12 months of facilitation in 3 FQHCs. We conducted chart audits to obtain data on changes in documented recommendation for colorectal cancer screening and completed screening. Key informant interviews provided qualitative data on barriers to and facilitators of implementing office systems. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of eligible patients with a documented colorectal cancer screening recommendation increased from 15% to 29% (P < .001). The percentage of patients up to date with colorectal cancer screening rose from 23% to 34% (P = .03). Key informants in all 3 clinics said the implementation support from the practice facilitator was critical for initiating or improving office systems and that modifying the electronic medical record was the biggest challenge and most time-consuming aspect of implementing office systems changes. Other barriers were staff turnover and reluctance on the part of local gastroenterology practices to perform free or low-cost diagnostic colonoscopies for uninsured or underinsured patients. CONCLUSION: Practice facilitation is a feasible, acceptable, and promising approach for supporting universal colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs. A larger-scale study is warranted.

Bridging Research, Practice, and Policy: The "Evidence Academy" Conference Model.

Innovative models to facilitate more rapid uptake of research findings into practice are urgently needed. Community members who engage in research can accelerate this process by acting as adoption agents. We implemented an Evidence Academy conference model bringing together researchers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers across North Carolina to discuss high-impact, life-saving study results. The overall goal is to develop dissemination and implementation strategies for translating evidence into practice and policy. Each 1-day, single-theme, regional meeting focuses on a leading community-identified health priority. The model capitalizes on the power of diverse local networks to encourage broad, common awareness of new research findings. Furthermore, it emphasizes critical reflection and active group discussion on how to incorporate new evidence within and across organizations, health care systems, and communities. During the concluding session, participants are asked to articulate action plans relevant to their individual interests, work setting, or area of expertise.

Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys). RESULTS: Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems. DISCUSSION: A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

A streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies: recommendations to speed the translation of research to practice.

BACKGROUND: Implementation science emerged from the recognized need to speed the translation of effective interventions into practice. In the US, the science has evolved to place an ever-increasing focus on implementation strategies. The long list of implementation strategies, terminology used to name strategies, and time required to tailor strategies all may contribute to delays in translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. To speed EBI translation, we propose a streamlined approach to classifying and tailoring implementation strategies. MAIN TEXT: A multidisciplinary team of eight scholars conducted an exercise to sort the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) strategies into three classes: implementation processes (n = 25), capacity-building strategies (n = 20), and integration strategies (n = 28). Implementation processes comprise best practices that apply across EBIs and throughout the phases of implementation from exploration through sustainment (e.g., conduct local needs assessment). Capacity-building strategies target either general or EBI-specific knowledge and skills (e.g., conduct educational meetings). Integration strategies include "methods and techniques" that target barriers or facilitators to implementation of a specific EBI beyond those targeted by capacity building. Building on these three classes, the team collaboratively developed recommendations for a pragmatic, five-step approach that begins with the implementation processes and capacity-building strategies practice-settings are already using prior to tailoring integration strategies. A case study is provided to illustrate use of the five-step approach to tailor the strategies needed to implement a transitional care intervention in skilled nursing facilities. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed approach streamlines the formative work required prior to implementing an EBI by building on practice partner preferences, expertise, and infrastructure while also making the most of prior research findings.

Patient Willingness to Use a Pharmacy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Service: A National Survey of U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand U.S. adults' willingness to use a pharmacy-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) distribution service for routine colorectal cancer screening called PharmFIT using Diffusion of Innovation Theory, evaluating patient's appraisals of the program's relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. METHODS: From March to April 2021, we conducted a national online survey of 1,045 U.S. adults ages 45 to 75. We identified correlates of patient willingness to use PharmFIT using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Most respondents (72%) were willing to get a FIT from their pharmacy for their regular colorectal cancer screening. Respondents were more willing to participate in PharmFIT if they perceived higher relative advantage ($\hat{\beta}$= 0.184; confidence interval, CI95%: 0.055-0.325) and perceived higher compatibility ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.422; CI95%: 0.253-0.599) to get screened in a pharmacy, had longer travel times to their primary health care provider ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.007; CI95%: 0.004-0.010). Respondents were less willing to participate in PharmFIT if they were 65 years or older ($\hat{\beta}$ = -0.220; CI95%: -0.362 to -0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Most U.S. adults would be willing to participate in PharmFIT for their routine colorectal cancer screening. Patient perceptions of the relative advantage and compatibility of PharmFIT were strongly associated with their willingness to use PharmFIT. Pharmacies should account for patient preferences for these two traits of PharmFIT to increase adoption and use. IMPACT: Pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening may be a viable public health strategy to significantly increase equitable access to screening for U.S. residents.

How pharmacists would design and implement a community pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Background: Distributing CRC screening through pharmacies, a highly accessible health service, may create opportunities for more equitable access to CRC screening. However, providing CRC screening in a new context introduces a substantial implementation challenge. Methods: We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with community pharmacists practicing in Washington state and North Carolina about distributing fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to patients in the pharmacy. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide analysis. Results: Pharmacists believed that delivering FITs was highly compatible with their environment, workflow, and scope of practice. While knowledge about FIT eligibility criteria varied, pharmacists felt comfortable screening patients. They identified standardized eligibility criteria, patient-facing educational materials, and continuing education as essential design features. Pharmacists proposed adapting existing pharmacy electronic health record systems for patient reminders/prompts to facilitate FIT completion. While pharmacists felt confident that they could discuss test results with patients, they also expressed a need for stronger communication and care coordination with primary care providers. Discussion: When designing a pharmacy-based CRC screening program, pharmacists desired programmatic procedures to fit their current knowledge and context. Findings indicate that if proper attention is given to multi-level factors, FIT delivery can be extended to pharmacies.

Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.

Colon cancer is a common and preventable cancer in the USA and testing for colon cancer can be done at home with a simple test. Yet, many people remain unscreened. This is particularly true for people who may not have ready access to health care, such as those who have limited incomes or resources or who live in rural areas. Most people live close to a pharmacy and visit a pharmacy more frequently than a primary care office. Pharmacies commonly offer services beyond medication dispensing (e.g. flu shot, diabetes management), making them a potential avenue for increasing colon cancer screening. This study aimed to learn what patients think about receiving colon cancer screening through pharmacies. We interviewed 32 people who fit the age-range recommended for colon cancer screening. They were open to, even embracing of, getting screened for colon cancer through a pharmacy, primarily because of its convenience, accessibility, and because it would not require a co-pay. At the same time, they emphasized the need for privacy and coordination with their primary care provider. We concluded that colon cancer screening in pharmacies is potentially a good option for people, provided they have privacy and that their primary care providers are informed.