Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas.

BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings. METHODS: SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up. DISCUSSION: Findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Primary Care Providers Experiences Implementing Low-Dose Computed Tomography Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening.

PURPOSE: Describe primary care providers' (PCPs) barriers and facilitators to implementation of lung cancer screening programs in rural settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with PCPs practicing in rural Oregon from November 2019 to September 2020. The interview questions and analytic framework were informed by the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We used inductive and deductive approaches for analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 key participants from 12 distinct health care systems. We identified several Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research factors affecting lung cancer screening implementation. 1) Most PCPs did not have workflows to assist in discussing screening and relied on their memory and knowledge of the patient's history to prompt discussions. PCPs supported screening and managed the patient throughout the process. 2) PCPs reported several patient-level barriers, including geographic access to lung cancer screening scans and out-of-pocket cost concerns. 3) PCPs reported that champions are necessary to create opportunities for local practices to adopt lung cancer screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Rural-practicing PCPs were supportive of lung cancer screening, however workflow processes, time challenges, and patient-reported barriers remain impediments to improved screening in their clinics. We identified several areas for improvement in lung cancer screening implementation in rural primary care practices, ranging from designing clinic workflows and processes to designating clinic staff to support referral, screening, and follow-up care for patients.

HPV self-collection: what are we waiting for? Exploration of attitudes from frontline healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE: Polymerase chain reaction based human papilloma virus (HPV) self-collection for cervical cancer screening is well established. It is utilized worldwide, accepted by patients, is cost-effective, has comparable sensitivity to provider-collected samples, and increases screening rates, however clinical practice in the United States has not shifted to include HPV self-collection. This study sought to examine provider knowledge and attitudes to better understand why HPV self-collection is not being utilized. METHODS: An observational, qualitative study was conducted. Data were collected with semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews with Oregon healthcare providers. Focus groups and interviews were continued until data saturation was achieved. A grounded theory method was used for analysis, a cyclical process of coding data, memo-writing, and theoretical sampling to the point of saturation. RESULTS: Eighteen healthcare providers participated in the focus group and interviews. They represented 14 of 36 counties across Oregon and 50% were physicians, 33% were nurse practitioners, and 94% worked within family medicine. All providers performed cervical cancer screening according to current American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines. Five overarching themes emerged: provider concerns, clinical and provider barriers, patient perspective and barriers, process-based themes, and barriers to cervical cancer screening. Nearly all providers stated they will offer HPV self-collection to most of their patients once available. CONCLUSION: While providers identified concerns and barriers for initiating HPV self-collection, there was a strong desire to implement HPV self-collection and acceptance within patient populations was assumed. Providers indicated the need for HPV self-collection to be incorporated into national screening guidelines along with best practices on how to successfully implement this modality to further increase cervical cancer screening rates.