Do no harm: the impact of implementing cancer prevention strategies on other preventive health measures.

BACKGROUND: Translational efforts to increase uptake of evidence-based practices typically look at those outcomes in isolation of their impact on other aspects of care delivery. If we are in fact to "do no harm", we must consider the possible negative impact of improving use of one practice on other quality measures. Alternatively, a focus on one practice could lead to spread of effective strategies to other practices, which would be highly beneficial. We studied the impact of a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening initiative on delivery of other preventive care measures. METHODS: We used an interrupted time series design with implementation year as the interruption point. The initiative was conducted between 2015 and 2020, with three staggered cohorts. Main outcomes were quality measures for colorectal cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, hypertension management, diabetes management, weight screening and follow-up, tobacco use screening and cessation treatment, and depression screening and follow-up. RESULTS: The initiative was associated with an increase in CRC screening (OR = 1.67, p ≤ 0.01; average marginal effect = 12.2% points), and did not reduce performance on other quality measures in the year of CRC program implementation or a change in their respective secular trends. CONCLUSIONS: The initiative led to a clinically meaningful increase in CRC screening and was not associated with reductions in delivery of six other preventive services. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives typically approach implementation with an eye towards reducing unintended impact and leveraging existing staff and resources. Implementation research studies may benefit from considering how QI initiatives factor in the local context in implementation efforts.

Challenges and recommendations for measuring time devoted to implementation and intervention activities in health equity-focused, resource-constrained settings: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little guidance for conducting health equity-focused economic evaluations of evidence-based practices in resource-constrained settings, particularly with respect to staff time use. Investigators must balance the need for low-touch, non-disruptive cost data collection with the need for data on providing services to priority subpopulations. METHODS: This investigation took place within a pilot study examining the implementation of a bundled screening intervention combining screening for social determinants of health and colorectal cancer at four federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in the Boston metropolitan area. Methods for collecting data on personnel costs for implementation and intervention activities, including passive (automatic) and active (non-automatic, requiring staff time and effort) data collection, as well as three alternate wordings for self-reporting time-use, were evaluated qualitatively using data collected through interviews with FQHC staff (including clinicians, population health staff, and community health workers) and assessments of data completeness. RESULTS: Passive data collection methods were simple to execute and resulted in no missing data, but missed implementation and intervention activities that took place outside planned meetings. Active cost data collection using spreadsheets was simple for users when applied to care processes already tracked in this fashion and yielded accurate time use data. However, for tasks where this was not typical, and when tasks were broken up over multiple sessions, spreadsheets were more challenging to use. Questions asking about time use for a typical rather than specific time period, and for typical patients, yielded the most reliable and actionable data. Still, even the best-performing question had substantial variability in time use estimates. Participants noted that patient characteristics of interest for equity-focused research, including language spoken, adverse social determinants of health, and issues related to poverty or mental health, all contributed significantly to this variability. CONCLUSIONS: Passively collected time use data are the least burdensome and should be pursued in research efforts when possible, but should be accompanied by qualitative assessments to ensure the data are an accurate reflection of effort. When workflows are already tracked by active data collection, these are also strong data collection methods. Self-reported time use will be most accurate when questions inquire about "typical" tasks and specific types of patients.

Embedding community-engaged research principles in implementation science: The implementation science center for cancer control equity.

Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.

Implementing expanded COVID-19 testing in Massachusetts community health centers through community partnerships: Protocol for an interrupted time series and stepped wedge study design.

BACKGROUND: Community Health Centers (CHCs) are a critical source of care for low-income and non-privately insured populations. During the pandemic, CHCs have leveraged their infrastructure and role as a trusted source of care to engage the communities they serve in COVID-19 testing. METHODS: To directly address the impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations in Massachusetts, we designed a study of community-engaged COVID-19 testing expansion: (1) leveraging existing partnerships to accelerate COVID-19 testing and rapidly disseminate effective implementation strategies; (2) incorporating efforts to address key barriers to testing participation in communities at increased risk for COVID-19; (3) further developing partnerships between communities and CHCs to address testing access and disparities; (4) grounding the study in the development of a shared ethical framework for advancing equity in situations of scarcity; and (5) developing mechanisms for communication and science translation to support community outreach. We use a controlled interrupted time series design, comparing number of COVID-19 tests overall and among people identified as members of high-risk groups served by intervention CHCs compared with six matched control CHCs in Massachusetts, followed by a stepped wedge design to pilot test strategies for tailored outreach by CHCs. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we describe a community-partnered strategy to accelerate COVID-19 testing in historically marginalized populations that provides ongoing resources to CHCs for addressing testing needs in their communities. The study aligns with principles of community-engaged research including shared leadership, adequate resources for community partners, and the flexibility to respond to changing needs over time.

Using mobile clinics to deliver care to difficult-to-reach populations: A COVID-19 practice we should keep.

In the United States, mobile health clinics are an important method for delivering care to medically underserved populations. Mobile clinics have long been used in pediatric primary care, but there is little published to help pediatricians disseminate this practice more widely. During the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced in-person medical visits and subsequent declines in routine pediatric vaccination rates highlighted the importance of using a variety of care delivery models to reach patients. To improve vaccination coverage among young children in Boston during summer 2020, Mattapan Community Health Center and Codman Square Health Center deployed mobile clinics as an adjunct to their in-person preventive pediatric clinical services. In total, the health centers completed 17 mobile clinic sessions and served 50 unique patients, 77% of whom were African-American/Black and 75% of whom were under the age of two. A total of 146 vaccine injections were administered. A quality improvement survey of participating families demonstrated high levels of patient satisfaction and a high likelihood of using mobile services again in the future. The mobile clinic model was most valuable in reaching families who avoided in-person care due to COVID-19 transmission concerns or faced barriers to in-person care. The health centers fostered trust and demonstrated cultural competency during this novel initiative by leveraging established patient-provider relationships, using interpreters, and involving staff who reflected the diversity of the communities. Although there are challenges to implementing mobile health clinics, this initiative demonstrates the value of mobile clinics in delivering high quality pediatric preventive care to difficult-to-reach populations.