Mail-Based Self-Sampling to Complete Colorectal Cancer Screening: Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up Through Implementation Science.

Introduction: Leveraging cancer screening tests, such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), that allow for self-sampling and postal mail for screening invitations, test delivery, and return can increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The range of approaches that use self-sampling and mail for promoting CRC screening, including use of recommended best practices, has not been widely investigated. Methods: We characterized self-sampling and mail strategies used for implementing CRC screening across a consortium of 8 National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot Initiative Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-up through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) research projects. These projects serve diverse rural, urban, and tribal populations in the US. Results: All 8 ACCSIS projects leveraged self-sampling and mail to promote screening. Strategies included organized mailed FIT outreach with mailed invitations, including FIT kits, reminders, and mailed return (n = 7); organized FIT-DNA outreach with mailed kit return (n = 1); organized on-demand FIT outreach with mailed offers to request a kit for mailed return (n = 1); and opportunistic FIT-DNA with in-clinic offers to be mailed a test for mailed return (n = 2). We found differences in patient identification strategies, outreach delivery approaches, and test return options. We also observed consistent use of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Summit consensus best practice recommendations by the 7 projects that used mailed FIT outreach. Conclusion: In research projects reaching diverse populations in the US, we observed multiple strategies that leverage self-sampling and mail to promote CRC screening. Mail and self-sampling, including mailed FIT outreach, could be more broadly leveraged to optimize cancer screening.

Factors That Support Sustainability of Health Systems Change to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Primary Care Clinics: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: From 2015 to 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supported 30 awardees in partnering with primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs) to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study identified factors that facilitated early implementation and sustainability within partner clinics. METHODS: We conducted longitudinal qualitative case studies of four CRCCP awardees and four of their partner clinics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to frame understanding of factors related to implementation and sustainability. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key staff and stakeholders exploring implementation practices and facilitators to sustainability. Qualitative thematic analysis of interview transcripts identified emerging themes across awardees and clinics. RESULTS: Qualitative themes related to six CFIR inner setting constructs-structural characteristics, readiness for implementation, networks and communication, culture, and implementation climate-were identified. Themes related to early implementation included conducting readiness assessments to tailor implementation, providing moderate funding to clinics, identifying clinic champions, and coordinating EBIs and SAs with existing clinic practices. Themes related to sustainability included the importance of ongoing electronic health record (EHR) support, clinic leadership support, team-based care, and EBI and SA integration with clinic policies, workflows, and procedures. IMPLICATIONS: Findings help to inform future scale-up of and decision-making within CRC screening programs and other chronic disease prevention programs implementing EBIs and SAs within primary care clinics and also highlight factors that maximize sustainability within these programs.

Modifications in Primary Care Clinics to Continue Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

COVID-19 caused significant declines in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Health systems and clinics, faced with a new rapidly spreading infectious disease, adapted to maintain patient safety and address the effects of the pandemic on healthcare delivery. This study aimed to understand how CDC-funded Colorectal Cancer Control Program recipients and their partner health systems and clinics may have modified evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation to promote CRC screening during the COVID-19 pandemic; to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing modifications; and to extract lessons that can be applied to support CRC screening, chronic disease management, and clinic resilience in the face of future public health crises. Nine recipients were selected to reflect the diversity inherent among all CRCCP recipients. Recipient and clinic partner staff answered unique sets of pre-interview questions to inform tailoring of interview guides that were developed using constructs from the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study team then interviewed recipient, health system, and clinic partner staff incorporating pre-interview responses to focus each conversation. We employed a rapid qualitative analysis approach then conducted virtual focus groups with recipient representatives to validate emergent themes. Three modifications that emerged from thematic analysis include: (1) offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits for CRC screening with mail or drop off return; (2) increasing the use of patient education and engagement strategies; and (3) increasing the use of or improving automated patient messaging systems. With improved tracking and automated reminder systems, mailed FIT kits paired with tailored patient education and clear instructions for completing the test could help primary care clinics catch up on the backlog of missed screenings during COVID-19. Future research can assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering mailed FIT kits on maintaining or improving CRC screening, especially among people who are medically underserved.

Improving the efficiency of integrated cancer screening delivery across multiple cancers: case studies from Idaho, Rhode Island, and Nebraska.

BACKGROUND: Three current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects. METHODS: The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders. RESULTS: In Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings. Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.

Integrated interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of multiple cancer screenings: conceptual framework, determinants of implementation success, measurement challenges, and research priorities.

BACKGROUND: Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer has been shown to reduce mortality; however, not all men and women are screened in the USA. Further, there are disparities in screening uptake by people from racial and ethnic minority groups, people with low income, people who lack health insurance, and those who lack access to care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds two programs-the Colorectal Cancer Control Program and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program-to help increase cancer screenings among groups that have been economically and socially marginalized. The goal of this manuscript is to describe how programs and their partners integrate evidence-based interventions (e.g., patient reminders) and supporting activities (e.g., practice facilitation to optimize electronic medical records) across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas based on implementation science. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory assessment using qualitative and quantitative data to describe implementation of integrated interventions and supporting activities for cancer screening. We conducted 10 site visits and follow-up telephone interviews with health systems and their partners to inform the integration processes. We developed a conceptual model to describe the integration processes and reviewed screening recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force to illustrate challenges in integration. To identify factors important in program implementation, we asked program implementers to rank domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Health systems integrated interventions for all screenings across single and multiple levels. Although potentially efficient, there were challenges due to differing eligibility of screenings by age, gender, frequency, and location of services. Program implementers ranked complexity, cost, implementation climate, and engagement of appropriate staff in implementation among the most important factors to success. CONCLUSION: Integrating interventions and supporting activities to increase uptake of cancer screenings could be an effective and efficient approach, but we currently do not have the evidence to recommend widescale adoption. Detailed multilevel measures related to process, screening, and implementation outcomes, and cost are required to evaluate integrated programs. Systematic studies can help to ascertain the benefits of integrating interventions and supporting activities for multiple cancer screenings, and we suggest research areas that might address current gaps in the literature.

Factors that support readiness to implement integrated evidence-based practice to increase cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), which partners with health care systems and primary care clinics to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. We interviewed CRCCP stakeholders to explore the factors that support readiness for integrated implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities to promote CRC screening with other screening and chronic disease management activities in primary care clinics. METHODS: Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted a literature review and identified constructs to guide data collection and analysis. We purposively selected four CRCCP awardees that demonstrated ongoing engagement with clinic partner sites, willingness to collaborate with CDC and other stakeholders, and availability of high-quality data. We gathered background information on the selected program sites and conducted primary data collection interviews with program site staff and partners. We used NVivo QSR 11.0 to systematically pilot-code interview data, achieving a kappa coefficient of 0.8 or higher, then implemented a step-wise process to identify site-specific and cross-cutting emergent themes. We also included screening outcome data in our analysis to examine the impact of integrated cancer screening efforts on screening uptake. RESULTS: We identified four overarching factors that contribute to clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities: the funding environment, clinic governance structure, information sharing within clinics, and clinic leadership support. Sites reported supporting clinic partners' readiness for integrated implementation by providing coordinated funding application processes and braided funding streams and by funding partner organizations to provide technical assistance to support efficient incorporation of EBIs and supporting activities into existing clinic workflows. These actions, in turn, support clinic readiness to integrate the implementation of EBIs and supporting activities that promote CRC screening along with other screening and chronic disease management activities. DISCUSSION: The selected CRCCP program sites supported clinics' readiness to integrate CRC EBIs and supporting activities with other screening and chronic disease management activities increasing uptake of CRC screening and improving coordination of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the factors that support clinic readiness to implement integrated EBIs and supporting activities including flexible funding mechanisms, effective data sharing systems, coordination across clinical staff, and supportive leadership. The findings provide insights into how public health programs and their clinic partners can collectively support integrated implementation to promote efficient, coordinated patient-centered care.

Late-Stage Diagnosis and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Treatment in Two State Medicaid Programs.

INTRODUCTION: To assess timing of Medicaid enrollment with late-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis and estimate treatment costs by stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We analyzed 2000-2009 California and Texas Medicaid data linked with cancer registry data. We assessed the association of Medicaid enrollment timing with late-stage colorectal cancer and estimated total and incremental 6-month treatment costs to Medicaid by stage using a noncancer comparison group matched on age group and sex. RESULTS: Compared with Medicaid enrollment before diagnosis, enrolling after diagnosis was associated with late-stage diagnosis. Incremental per-person treatment costs were $31,063, $39,834, and $47,161 for localized, regional, and distant stage in California, respectively; and $28,701, $38,212, and $49,634 in Texas, respectively. DISCUSSION: In California and Texas, Medicaid enrollment after CRC diagnosis was associated with later-stage disease and higher treatment costs. Facilitating timely and continuous Medicaid enrollment may lead to earlier stage at diagnosis, reduced costs, and improved outcomes.

Effectiveness and Cost of Implementing Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among an Underserved Population in Chicago.

With funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, The University of Chicago Center for Asian Health Equity partnered with a federally qualified health center (FQHC) to implement multiple evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in order to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness and cost of implementing a provider reminder system entered manually and supplemented with patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback. The FQHC collected demographic characteristics of the FQHC and outcome data from January 2015 through December 2015 (preimplementation period) and cost from January 2016 through September 2017 (implementation period). Cost data were collected for the implementation period. We report on the demographics of the eligible population, CRC screening order, completion rates by sociodemographic characteristics, and, overall, the effectiveness and cost of implementation. From the preimplementation phase to the implementation phase, there was a 21.2 percentage point increase in CRC screens completed. The total cost of implementing EBIs was $40908.97. We estimated that an additional 283 screens were completed because of the interventions, and the implementation cost of the interventions was $144.65 per additional screen. With the interventions, CRC screening uptake in Chicago increased for all race/ethnicity and demographic backgrounds at the FQHC, particularly for patients aged 50 to 64 years and for Asian, Hispanic, and uninsured patients.

Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has a long-standing commitment to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for vulnerable populations. In 2005, the CDC began a demonstration in five states and, with lessons learned, launched a national program, the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP), in 2009. The CRCCP continues today and its current emphasis is the implementation of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of four CRCCP awardees and their federally qualified health center partners as an introduction to the accompanying series of research briefs where we present individual findings on impacts of evidence-based interventions on CRC screening uptake for each awardee. We also include in this article the conceptual framework used to guide our research. Our findings contribute to the evidence base and guide future program implementation to improve sustainability, increase CRC screening, and address disparities in screening uptake.

Examining the Effectiveness of Provider Incentives to Increase CRC Screening Uptake in Neighborhood Healthcare: A California Federally Qualified Health Center.

As an awardee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, the California Department of Public Health partnered with Neighborhood Healthcare to implement evidence-based interventions and provider incentives (incentives offered to support staff, e.g., medical assistants, phlebotomists, front office staff, lab technicians) to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost of the provider incentive intervention implemented by Neighborhood Healthcare to increase colorectal cancer screening uptake. We collected and analyzed process and cost data to assess fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates to the health centers and the number of completed FIT kits. We estimated the costs of the preexisting interventions and the new interventions. Analyses were conducted for two time periods: preimplementation and implementation. Most Neighborhood Healthcare health centers experienced an increase in the percentage of FIT kit returns (average of 3.6 percentage points) and individuals screened (an average increase of 111 FIT kits per month) from the baseline period through the implementation period. The cost of the incentive intervention for each additional screen was $66.79. In conclusion, the results indicate that incentive programs can have an overall positive impact on both the percentage of FIT kits returned and the number of individuals screened.

Cost and Effectiveness of Reminders to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Rural Federally Qualified Health Centers in West Virginia.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the West Virginia Program to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in implementing patient reminders to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates in nine federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Using process measures and cost data collected, the authors examined the differences in the intensity of the phone calls across FQHCs and compared them with the return rates achieved. They also reported the cost per kit successfully returned as a result of the intervention. Across all FQHCs, 5,041 FIT kits were ordered, and the initial return rate (without a reminder) was 41.1%. A total of 2,201 patients received reminder phone calls; on average, patients received 1.61 reminder calls each. The reminder interventions increased the average FIT kit return rate to 60.7%. The average total cost per FIT kit returned across all FQHCs was $60.18, and the average cost of only the reminders was $11.20 per FIT kit returned. FQHCs achieved an average increase of 19.6 percentage points in FIT kit return rates, and costs across clinics varied. Clinics with high-quality health information systems that enabled tracking of patients with minimal effort were able to implement lower cost reminder interventions.

The Effectiveness and Cost to Improve Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Federally Qualified Homeless Clinic in Eastern Kentucky.

The objective of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and cost of patient incentives, together with patient navigation and patient reminders, to increase fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit return rates and colorectal cancer screening uptake in one federally qualified health center (FQHC) in Appalachia. This FQHC is a designated homeless clinic, as 79.7% of its patient population are homeless. We collected process, outcome, and cost data from the FQHC for two time periods: usual care (September 2016-August 2017) and implementation (September 2017-September 2018). We reported the FIT kit return rate, the increase in return rate, and the additional number of individual screens. We also calculated the incremental cost per additional screen. The patient incentive program, with patient navigation and patient reminders, increased the number of FIT kits returned from the usual care period to the implementation period. The return rate increased by 25.9 percentage points (from 21.7% to 47.6%) with an additional 91 people screened at an incremental cost of $134.61 per screen. A patient incentive program, together with the assistance of patient navigators and supplemented with patient reminders, can help improve CRC screening uptake among vulnerable and homeless populations.

Role of an Implementation Economics Analysis in Providing the Evidence Base for Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Since 2005 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has funded organizations across the United States to promote screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) to detect early CRC or precancerous polyps that can be treated to avoid disease progression and death. The objective of this study was to describe how findings from economic evaluation approaches of a subset of these awardees and their implementation sites (n = 9) can drive decision making and improve program implementation and diffusion. INTERVENTION APPROACH: We described the framework for the implementation economics evaluation used since 2016 for the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Learning Collaborative. EVALUATION METHODS: We compared CRC interventions implemented across health systems, changes in screening uptake, and the incremental cost per person of implementing an intervention. We also analyzed data on how implementation costs changed over time for a CRC program that conducted interventions in a series of rounds. RESULTS: Implementation of the interventions, which included provider and patient reminders, provider assessment and feedback, and incentives, resulted in increases in screening uptake ranging from 4.9 to 26.7 percentage points. Across the health systems, the incremental cost per person screened ranged from $18.76 to $144.55. One awardee's costs decreased because of a reduction in intervention development and start-up costs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Health systems, CRCCP awardees, and CDC can use these findings for quality improvement activities, incorporation of information into trainings and support activities, and future program design.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

INTRODUCTION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non-evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities. METHODS: By using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees. RESULTS: The promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located. CONCLUSION: CDC's CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

INTRODUCTION: We developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned. METHODS: We developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009-2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not. RESULTS: CDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT. CONCLUSION: A web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

Comparison of Program Resources Required for Colonoscopy and Fecal Screening: Findings From 5 Years of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy and guaiac fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) are the most common colorectal cancer screening methods in the United States. However, information is limited on the program resources required over time to use these tests. METHODS: We collected cost data from 29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees by using a standardized data collection instrument for 5 program years (2009-2014). We created a panel data set with 124 records and assessed differences by screening test used. RESULTS: Forty-four percent of all programs (N = 124) offered colonoscopy (55 of 124), 32% (39 of 124) offered FOBT/FIT, and 24% (30 of 124) offered both. Overall, total cost per person was higher in program year 1 ($3,962), the beginning of CRCCP than in subsequent program years ($1,714). The cost per person was $3,153 for programs using colonoscopy and $1,291 for those using FOBT/FIT with diagnostic colonoscopy. The average clinical cost per person was $1,369 for colonoscopy and $280 for FOBT/FIT during the program (these do not reflect cost of repeated FOBT/FIT screens). Programs serving a large number of people had lower per-person costs than those serving a small volume, probably because of fixed costs related to nonclinical expenses. CONCLUSION: Colorectal cancer screening programs incur costs in addition to the clinical cost of the screening procedures to support planning and management, contracting with providers, and tracking patients. Because programs can achieve potential economies of scale, partnerships among smaller programs for screening delivery could decrease overall costs.

Identifying optimal approaches to scale up colorectal cancer screening: an overview of the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC)'s learning laboratory.

Use of recommended screening tests can reduce new colorectal cancers (CRC) and deaths, but screening uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a second round of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2015 to increase screening rates among individuals aged 50-75 years. The 30 state, university, and tribal awardees supported by the CRCCP implement a range of multicomponent interventions targeting health systems that have low CRC screening uptake, including low-income and minority populations. CDC invited a select subset of 16 CRCCP awardees to form a learning laboratory with the goal of performing targeted evaluations to identify optimal approaches to scale-up interventions to increase uptake of CRC screening among vulnerable populations. This commentary provides an overview of the CRCCP learning laboratory, presents findings from the implementation of multicomponent interventions at four FQHCs participating in the learning laboratory, and summarizes key lessons learned on intervention implementation approaches. Lessons learned can support future program implementation to ensure scalability and sustainability of the interventions as well as guide future implementation science and evaluation studies conducted by the CRCCP learning laboratory.

A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: It has been demonstrated that fecal immunochemical test (FIT) mailing programs are effective for increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The objectives of the current study were to assess the magnitude of uptake that could be achieved with a mailed FIT program in a federally qualified health center and whether such a program can be implemented at a reasonable cost to support sustainability. METHODS: The Washington State Department of Health's partner HealthPoint implemented a direct-mail FIT program at 9 medical clinics, along with a follow-up reminder letter and automated telephone calls to those not up-to-date with recommended screening. Supplemental outreach events at selected medical clinics and a 50th birthday card screening reminder program also were implemented. The authors collected and analyzed process, effectiveness, and cost measures and conducted a systematic assessment of the short-term cost effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Overall, 5178 FIT kits were mailed with 4009 follow-up reminder letters, and 8454 automated reminder telephone calls were made over 12 months. In total, 1607 FIT kits were returned within 3 months of the end of the implementation period: an overall return rate of 31% for the mailed FIT program. The average total intervention cost per FIT kit returned was $39.81, and the intervention implementation cost per kit returned was $18.76. CONCLUSIONS: The mailed FIT intervention improved CRC screening uptake among HealthPoint's patient population. This intervention was implemented for less than $40 per individual successfully screened. The findings and lessons learned can assist other clinics that serve disadvantaged populations to increase their CRC screening adherence.

Evaluation of patient-focused interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening among new york state medicaid managed care patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate an ongoing initiative to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake in the New York State (NYS) Medicaid managed care population. METHODS: Patients aged 50 to 75 years who were not up to date with CRC screening and resided in 2 NYS regions were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts: no mailed reminder, mailed reminder, and mailed reminder + incentive (in the form of a $25 cash card). Screening prevalence and the costs of the intervention were summarized. RESULTS: In total, 7123 individuals in the Adirondack Region and 10,943 in the Central Region (including the Syracuse metropolitan area) were included. Screening prevalence in the Adirondack Region was 7.2% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, 7.0% in the mailed reminder cohort, and 5.8% in the no mailed reminder cohort. In the Central Region, screening prevalence was 7.2% in the mailed reminder cohort, 6.9% in the mailed reminder + incentive cohort, and 6.5% in the no mailed reminder cohort. The cost of implementing interventions in the Central Region was approximately 53% lower than in the Adirondack Region. CONCLUSIONS: Screening uptake was low and did not differ significantly across the 2 regions or within the 3 cohorts. The incentive payment and mailed reminder did not appear to be effective in increasing CRC screening. The total cost of implementation was lower in the Central Region because of efficiencies generated from lessons learned during the first round of implementation in the Adirondack Region. More varied multicomponent interventions may be required to facilitate the completion of CRC screening among Medicaid beneficiaries.