Healthcare organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation.

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, healthcare organization characteristics including ownership, leadership, and culture can impact care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Healthcare organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming healthcare organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-, organization-, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics-the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in healthcare delivery-and their dynamics-is an important, yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. However, the field lacks conceptual grounding to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels.

Screening Beyond the Evidence: Patterns of Age and Comorbidity for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists to guide continuation of screening beyond the recommended ages of national guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, although increasing age and comorbidity burden is likely to reduce the screening benefit of lower mortality. OBJECTIVE: Characterize screening after recommended stopping ages, by age and comorbidities in a large, diverse sample. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals in the PROSPR-I consortium cohorts from 75 to 89 years of age for breast cancer screening, 66-89 years of age for cervical cancer screening, and 76-89 years of age for colorectal cancer screening from 2011 to 2013. The lower age thresholds were based on the guidelines for each respective cancer type. MAIN MEASURES: Proportion of annual screening by cancer type in relation to age and Charlson comorbidity score and median years of screening past guideline age. We estimated the likelihood of screening past the guideline-based age as a function of age and comorbidity using logistic regression. KEY RESULTS: The study cohorts included individuals screening for breast (n = 33,475); cervical (n = 459,318); and colorectal (n = 556,356) cancers. In the year following aging out, approximately 30% of the population was screened for breast cancer, 2% of the population was screened for cervical, and almost 5% for colorectal cancer. The median number of years screened past the guideline-based recommendation was 5, 3, and 4 for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Of those screening > 10 years past the guideline-based age,15%, 46%, and 25% had ≥ 3 comorbidities respectively. Colorectal cancer screening had the smallest decline in the likelihood of screening beyond the age-based recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The odds of screening past guideline-based age decreased with comorbidity burden for breast and cervical cancer screening but not for colorectal. These findings suggest the need to evaluate shared decision tools to help patients understand whether screening is appropriate and to generate more evidence in older populations.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning One Year after a Negative Fecal Occult Blood Test, among Screen-Eligible 76- to 85-Year-Olds.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is universally recommended for adults ages 45 to 75 years. Noninvasive fecal occult blood tests are effective screening tests recommended by guidelines. However, empirical evidence to inform older adults' decisions about whether to continue screening is sparse, especially for individuals with prior screening. METHODS: This study used a retrospective cohort of older adults at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and Parkland Health. Beginning 1 year following a negative stool-based screening test, cumulative risks of colorectal cancer incidence, colorectal cancer mortality (accounting for deaths from other causes), and non-colorectal cancer mortality were estimated. RESULTS: Cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer in screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 with a negative fecal occult blood test 1 year ago (N = 118,269) was 0.23% [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20%-0.26%] after 2 years and 1.21% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.30%) after 8 years. Cumulative colorectal cancer mortality was 0.03% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.04%) after 2 years and 0.33% (95% CI, 0.28%-0.39%) after 8 years. Cumulative risk of death from non-colorectal cancer causes was 4.81% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.96%) after 2 years and 28.40% (95% CI, 27.95%-28.85%) after 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among 76- to 85-year-olds with a recent negative stool-based test, cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality estimates were low, especially within 2 years; death from other causes was over 100 times more likely than death from colorectal cancer. IMPACT: These findings of low absolute colorectal cancer risk, and comparatively higher risk of death from other causes, can inform decision-making regarding whether and when to continue colorectal cancer screening beyond age 75 among screen-eligible adults.

Community Health Workers to Increase Cancer Screening: 3 Community Guide Systematic Reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Many in the U.S. are not up to date with cancer screening. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of interventions engaging community health workers to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: Authors identified relevant publications from previous Community Guide systematic reviews of interventions to increase cancer screening (1966 through 2013) and from an update search (January 2014-November 2021). Studies written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were included if they assessed interventions implemented in high-income countries; reported screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer; and engaged community health workers to implement part or all of the interventions. Community health workers needed to come from or have close knowledge of the intervention community. RESULTS: The review included 76 studies. Interventions engaging community health workers increased screening use for breast (median increase=11.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=5.5‒23.5), cervical (median increase=12.8 percentage points, interquartile interval=6.4‒21.0), and colorectal cancers (median increase=10.5 percentage points, interquartile interval=4.5‒17.5). Interventions were effective whether community health workers worked alone or as part of a team. Interventions increased cancer screening independent of race or ethnicity, income, or insurance status. DISCUSSION: Interventions engaging community health workers are recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to increase cancer screening. These interventions are typically implemented in communities where people are underserved to improve health and can enhance health equity. Further training and financial support for community health workers should be considered to increase cancer screening uptake.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Colorectal Cancer Mortality Beginning Ten Years after a Negative Colonoscopy, among Screen-Eligible Adults 76 to 85 Years Old.

BACKGROUND: Few empirical data are available to inform older adults' decisions about whether to screen or continue screening for colorectal cancer based on their prior history of screening, particularly among individuals with a prior negative exam. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort of older adults receiving healthcare at three Kaiser Permanente integrated healthcare systems in Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC), and Washington (KPWA), we estimated the cumulative risk of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality among older adults who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier, accounting for death from other causes. RESULTS: Screen-eligible adults ages 76 to 85 years who had a negative colonoscopy 10 years earlier were found to be at a low risk of colorectal cancer diagnosis, with a cumulative incidence of 0.39% [95% CI, 0.31%-0.48%) at 2 years that increased to 1.29% (95% CI, 1.02%-1.61%) at 8 years. Cumulative mortality from colorectal cancer was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.02%-0.08%) at 2 years and 0.46% (95% CI, 0.30%-0.70%) at 8 years. CONCLUSIONS: These low estimates of cumulative colorectal cancer incidence and mortality occurred in the context of much higher risk of death from other causes. IMPACT: Knowledge of these results could bear on older adults' decision to undergo or not undergo further colorectal cancer screening, including choice of modality, should they decide to continue screening. See related commentary by Lieberman, p. 6.

Primary Care Practitioner Perceptions on the Follow-up of Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results.

Importance: Health care systems focus on delivering routine cancer screening to eligible individuals, yet little is known about the perceptions of primary care practitioners (PCPs) about barriers to timely follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To describe PCP perceptions about factors associated with the follow-up of abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening test results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Survey study of PCPs from 3 primary care practice networks in New England between February and October 2020, prior to participating in a randomized clinical trial to improve follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Participants were physicians and advanced practice clinicians from participating practices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported process, attitudes, knowledge, and satisfaction about the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. Results: Overall, 275 (56.7%) PCPs completed the survey (range by site, 34.9%-71.9%) with more female PCPs (61.8% [170 of 275]) and general internists (73.1% [201 of 275]); overall, 28,7% (79 of 275) were aged 40 to 49 years. Most PCPs felt responsible for managing abnormal cancer screening test results with the specific cancer type being the best factor (range, 63.6% [175 of 275] for breast to 81.1% [223 of 275] for lung; P < .001). The PCPs reported limited support for following up on overdue abnormal cancer screening test results. Standard processes such as automated reports, reminder letters, or outreach workers were infrequently reported. Major barriers to follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results across all cancer types included limited electronic health record tools (range, 28.5% [75 of 263]-36.5%[96 of 263]), whereas 50% of PCPs felt that there were major social barriers to receiving care for abnormal cancer screening test results for colorectal cancer. Fewer than half reported being very satisfied with the process of managing abnormal cancer screening test results, with satisfaction being greatest for breast cancer (46.9% [127 of 271]) and lowest for cervical (21.8% [59 of 271]) and lung cancer (22.4% [60 of 268]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of PCPs, important deficiencies in systems for managing abnormal cancer screening test results were reported. These findings suggest a need for comprehensive organ-agnostic systems to promote timely follow-up of abnormal cancer screening results using a primary care-focused approach across the range of cancer screening tests.

Evaluating and Improving Cancer Screening Process Quality in a Multilevel Context: The PROSPR II Consortium Design and Research Agenda.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a complex process involving multiple steps and levels of influence (e.g., patient, provider, facility, health care system, community, or neighborhood). We describe the design, methods, and research agenda of the Population-based Research to Optimize the Screening Process (PROSPR II) consortium. PROSPR II Research Centers (PRC), and the Coordinating Center aim to identify opportunities to improve screening processes and reduce disparities through investigation of factors affecting cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening in U.S. community health care settings. METHODS: We collected multilevel, longitudinal cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening process data from clinical and administrative sources on >9 million racially and ethnically diverse individuals across 10 heterogeneous health care systems with cohorts beginning January 1, 2010. To facilitate comparisons across organ types and highlight data breadth, we calculated frequencies of multilevel characteristics and volumes of screening and diagnostic tests/procedures and abnormalities. RESULTS: Variations in patient, provider, and facility characteristics reflected the PROSPR II health care systems and differing target populations. PRCs identified incident diagnoses of invasive cancers, in situ cancers, and precancers (invasive: 372 cervical, 24,131 colorectal, 11,205 lung; in situ: 911 colorectal, 32 lung; precancers: 13,838 cervical, 554,499 colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: PROSPR II's research agenda aims to advance: (i) conceptualization and measurement of the cancer screening process, its multilevel factors, and quality; (ii) knowledge of cancer disparities; and (iii) evaluation of the COVID-19 pandemic's initial impacts on cancer screening. We invite researchers to collaborate with PROSPR II investigators. IMPACT: PROSPR II is a valuable data resource for cancer screening researchers.

Multilevel Follow-up of Cancer Screening (mFOCUS): Protocol for a multilevel intervention to improve the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results.

INTRODUCTION: While substantial attention is focused on the delivery of routine preventive cancer screening, less attention has been paid to systematically ensuring that there is timely follow-up of abnormal screening test results. Barriers to completion of timely follow-up occur at the patient, provider, care team and system levels. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, primary care sites in three networks are randomized to one of four arms: (1) standard care, (2) "visit-based" reminders that appear in a patient's electronic health record (EHR) when it is accessed by either patient or providers (3) visit based reminders with population health outreach, and (4) visit based reminders, population health outreach, and patient navigation with systematic screening and referral to address social barriers to care. Eligible patients in participating practices are those overdue for follow-up of an abnormal results on breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening tests. RESULTS: The primary outcome is whether an individual receives follow-up, specific to the organ type and screening abnormality, within 120 days of becoming eligible for the trial. Secondary outcomes assess the effect of intervention components on the patient and provider experience of obtaining follow-up care and the delivery of the intervention components. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide evidence for the role of a multilevel intervention on improving the follow-up of abnormal cancer screening test results. We will also specifically assess the relative impact of the components of the intervention, compared to standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03979495.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Mammography use and breast cancer incidence among older U.S. women.

PURPOSE: The death rate for female breast cancer increases progressively with age, but organizations differ in their mammography screening recommendations for older women. To understand current patterns of screening mammography use and breast cancer diagnoses among older women, we examined recent national data on mammography screening use and breast cancer incidence and stage at diagnosis among women aged ≥ 65 years. METHODS: We examined breast cancer incidence using the 2016 United States Cancer Statistics dataset and analyzed screening mammography use among women aged ≥ 65 years using the 2018 National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Women aged 70-74 years had the highest breast cancer incidence rate (458.3 cases per 100,000 women), and women aged ≥ 85 years had the lowest rate (295.2 per 100,000 women). The proportion of cancer diagnosed at distant stage or with unknown stage increased with age. Over half of women aged 80-84 years and 26.0% of women aged ≥ 85 years reported a screening mammogram within the last 2 years. Excellent/very good/good self-reported health status (p = .010) and no dependency in activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living (p < .001) were associated with recent mammography screening. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer incidence rates and stage at diagnosis vary by age. Many women aged ≥ 75 years receive screening mammograms. The results of this study point to areas for further investigation to promote optimal mammography screening among older women.

Predictors of Patient-Centered Communication among U.S. Adults: Analysis of the 2017-2018 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

An essential component of patient-centered care is the communication between patients and their providers, which can affect patients' health outcomes A cancer care model, developed by Epstein and Street, includes a multi-dimensional patient-centered communication (PCC) framework with six functions: foster healing relationships, exchange information, respond to emotions, manage uncertainty, make decisions, and enable patient self-management. Seven domains that describe the functions were included on the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) to assess PCC. We examined the association between sociodemographic and health-related factors and PCC as well as how U.S. adults, by different age groups, ranked different domains of PCC.Nationally representative data (n = 5,738) from 2017 to 2018 HINTS were merged to examine predictors of PCC among U.S. adults. Weighted statistics describe the study sample and prevalence for ratings of PCC domains. A multivariate linear regression model was computed to assess associations among predictors and PCC.Participants rated their communication with doctors in the last year with an overall mean of 80 out of 100. Older age, those reporting excellent health, and those with higher confidence in taking care of one's health predicted better PCC. Individuals who reported being non-Hispanic Asian and having lower household income were associated with poorer communication. Participants' lowest rating of PCC concentrated on providers dealing with their emotional needs.Findings suggest that many patients do not feel that their providers adequately manage, communicate, nor respond to their emotional needs. Future efforts should enhance interpersonal exchanges among sub-populations who report poorer communication with providers during clinical visits.

Primary care providers' cancer genetic testing-related knowledge, attitudes, and communication behaviors: A systematic review and research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) can play a critical role in helping patients receive the preventive health benefits of cancer genetic risk information. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to identify studies of US PCPs' knowledge, attitudes, and communication-related behaviors regarding genetic tests that could inform risk-stratification approaches for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in order to describe current findings and research gaps. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of six electronic databases to identify peer-reviewed empirical articles relating to US PCPs and genetic testing for breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer published in English from 2008 to 2016. We reviewed these data and used narrative synthesis methods to integrate findings into a descriptive summary and identify research needs. RESULTS: We identified 27 relevant articles. Most focused on genetic testing for breast cancer (23/27) and colorectal cancer risk (12/27); only one study examined testing for prostate cancer risk. Most articles addressed descriptive research questions (24/27). Many studies (24/27) documented PCPs' knowledge, often concluding that providers' knowledge was incomplete. Studies commonly (11/27) examined PCPs' attitudes. Across studies, PCPs expressed some concerns about ethical, legal, and social implications of testing. Attitudes about the utility of clinical genetic testing, including for targeted cancer screening, were generally favorable; PCPs were more skeptical of direct-to-consumer testing. Relatively fewer studies (9/27) examined PCPs' communication practices regarding cancer genetic testing. DISCUSSION: This review indicates a need for investigators to move beyond descriptive research questions related to PCPs' knowledge and attitudes about cancer genetic testing. Research is needed to address important gaps regarding the development, testing, and implementation of innovative interventions and educational programs that can improve PCPs' genetic testing knowledge, assuage concerns about the appropriateness of cancer genetic testing, and promote open and effective patient-provider communication about genetic risk and genetic testing.

Interventions to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older adults with cancer: The funding landscape at NIH, ACS and PCORI.

Identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities in cancer and aging research was the focus of a three-part conference series led by the Cancer and Aging Research Group from 2010 to 2015. The third meeting, featured representatives from the NIA, NCI, ACS and PCORI each of whom discussed research priorities and funding opportunities in cancer and aging at their respective agencies. This manuscript reports on the proceedings of that conference with a specific focus on funding priorities for interventions to improve the quality of life and survivorship of older adults with cancer. Helpful tips from each funder regarding writing a scientifically strong research proposal are presented.

An Individualized Approach to Cancer Screening Decisions in Older Adults: A Multilevel Framework.

Guidelines for optimal cancer screening in older adults remain unclear, particularly for adults over the age of 75. While cancer screening in older adults may benefit some in good health, it may cause unnecessary burdens in others with limited life expectancy. Thus, a systematic approach to enable individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults is needed. We suggest a framework that guides such decisions through evidence-based approaches from multiple interactions, and that involves the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. An individualized approach considers differences in disease risk rather than the chronological age of the patient. This paper presents a comprehensive framework that depicts the independent and converging levels of influences on individualized cancer screening decisions in older adults. This Individualized Decisions for Screening (IDS) framework recognizes the reality of these interrelationships, including the tensions that arise when behaviors and outcomes are valued differently at the patient, clinician, and healthcare organization levels. Person-centered approaches are essential to advancing multilevel research of individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults.

Colon cancer screening in U.S. adults aged 65 and older according to life expectancy and age.

OBJECTIVES: To examine receipt of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening according to age and life expectancy (LE) in adults aged 65 and older. DESIGN: Population-based survey. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwelling adults aged 65 and older who participated in the 2008 or 2010 National Health Interview Survey (N = 7,747). MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of CRC screening (e.g., colonoscopy within 10 years) was examined according to age and LE (≥10 and <10 years), adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics and survey year. Frequency of CRC screening was also examined according to age and LE at time of screening (e.g., age at colonoscopy rather than at interview). Participants screened when they were aged 75 and older or had less than a 10-year LE were considered to have received screening inconsistent with guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 38.5% of participants had less than a 10-year LE; 40.2% were aged 75 and older, and 56.3% had received recent CRC screening (90.1% by colonoscopy). CRC screening was higher in 2010 (58.9%) than 2008 (53.7%, P <.001) and was associated with longer LE and younger age, although 51.1% of adults aged 75 and older reported receiving CRC screening, as did 50.9% of adults with less than a 10-year LE. Based on age and LE at time of screening (rather than at interview), 28.4% of CRC screening of adults aged 65 and older was targeted to those aged 75 and older and those with less than a 10-year LE. Of adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or more (adults recommended for screening by guidelines), 39.2% had not recently been screened. CONCLUSION: Older adults with little chance of benefit because of limited LE commonly undergo CRC screening, whereas many adults aged 65 to 75 with a 10-year LE or greater are not screened.

Opportunities and challenges for the use of large-scale surveys in public health research: a comparison of the assessment of cancer screening behaviors.

Large-scale surveys that assess cancer prevention and control behaviors are a readily available, rich resource for public health researchers. Although these data are used by a subset of researchers who are familiar with them, their potential is not fully realized by the research community for reasons including lack of awareness of the data and limited understanding of their content, methodology, and utility. Until now, no comprehensive resource existed to describe and facilitate use of these data. To address this gap and maximize use of these data, we catalogued the characteristics and content of four surveys that assessed cancer screening behaviors in 2005, the most recent year with concurrent periods of data collection: the National Health Interview Survey, Health Information National Trends Survey, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and California Health Interview Survey. We documented each survey's characteristics, measures of cancer screening, and relevant correlates; examined how published studies (n = 78) have used the surveys' cancer screening data; and reviewed new cancer screening constructs measured in recent years. This information can guide researchers in deciding how to capitalize on the opportunities presented by these data resources.

The implementation road: engaging community partnerships in evidence-based cancer control interventions.

Southern rural and underserved counties have high proportions of individuals with increased mortality for cervical and breast cancers. To improve the integration of behavioral research into practice, the dissemination and implementation of efficacious interventions to encourage the use of screening have increased in recent years. This study addressed gaps in the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions with a pilot called Team Up. Qualitative interviews with 24 key individuals in six state-level partnerships explored partnership characteristics that influenced selection and use of evidence-based interventions among low-income, rarely or never screened women. Guided by diffusion of innovations theory and the Lasker and Weiss partnership functioning model, interviews about the intervention centered on (a) knowledge surrounding evidence base; (b) identification, selection, and adoption; (c) planning and adaptation; (d) implementation; and (e) partnership reflections and impact. Using grounded theory and content analysis, data revealed that lack of communication and high partner turnover hindered adoption and adaptation, whereas failure of partnership leaders to engage local stakeholders and lack of sufficient funds hampered implementation. Delivery of evidence-based interventions was more effective when partnerships included local partners in early decision making and when coaches were introduced to facilitate strategic thinking about translating evidence-based interventions into practice. A challenge for public health partnerships was the translation of interventions into successful programs, such that underserved communities benefited from early detection intervention research.