Using information technology to integrate tobacco use treatment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative Cancer Centers.

Background: Cancer patients who receive evidence-based tobacco-dependence treatment are more likely to quit and remain abstinent, but tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) are not consistently offered. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute, through the Cancer Moonshot, funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). C3I supports 52 cancer centers to implement and expand evidence-based tobacco treatment in routine oncology care. Integration into routine care involves the use of health information technology (IT), including modifying electronic health records and clinical workflows. Here, we examine C3I cancer centers' IT leadership involvement and experiences in tobacco-dependence treatment implementation. Method: This qualitative study of C3I-funded cancer centers integrated data from online surveys and in-person, semistructured interviews with IT leaders. We calculated descriptive statistics of survey data and applied content analysis to interview transcripts. Results: Themes regarding IT personnel included suggestions to involve IT early, communicate regularly, understand the roles and influence of the IT team, and match program design with IT funding and resources. Themes regarding electronic health record (EHR) modifications included beginning modifications early to account for long lead time to make changes, working with IT to identify and adapt existing EHR tools for TTP or designing tools that will support a desired workflow developed with end-users, and working with IT personnel to make sure TTPs comply with system and state policies (e.g., privacy laws). Conclusions: The experiences of C3I cancer centers regarding the use of health IT to enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to potentially enhance TTP implementation and patient outcomes.

Almost a quarter of patients first diagnosed with cancer report current cigarette smoking. There are tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) that effectively help patients quit smoking to improve cancer treatment response, survival, and quality-of-life. In 2017, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) funded the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) and supported 52 cancer centers to implement these TTPs. A key component of these programs is the information technology (IT) necessary to refer patients to the program and document their progress. As coordinators of C3I, our team conducted interviews with IT leaders at these cancer centers to learn about the implementation of the programs. IT leaders suggested that IT teams be involved early in the program implementation process and that leaders communicate with the IT team regularly to address necessary changes to referral and documentation systems. IT teams are important to involve early and regularly throughout the TTP implementation process because they have unique knowledge of how funding, policy, and existing technological tools will impact the implementation and success of the program. Our findings emphasize the importance of involving IT teams early in the planning process for such programs. Studies such as this focusing on the experiences and knowledge of specific team members, such as the IT team, enhance tobacco-dependence treatment program implementation and can guide cancer centers and community oncology practices to implement these programs to improve patient outcomes.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. METHODS: DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. RESULTS: In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Tobacco Treatment Program Implementation at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored. AIMS AND METHODS: We conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time. RESULTS: The proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p = .000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p = .002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p = .006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p = .006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPLICATIONS: This work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components. RESULTS: Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system. CONCLUSION: Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been shown to decrease CRC mortality. Implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) increases CRC screening. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which combinations of EBIs or strategies led to increases in clinic-level screening rates among clinics participating in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Data were collected from CRCCP clinics between 2015 and 2018 and the analysis was conducted in 2020. The outcome variable was the annual change in clinic level CRC screening rate in percentage points. We used first difference (FD) estimator of linear panel data regression model to estimate the associations of outcome with independent variables, which include different combinations of EBIs and intervention strategies. The study sample included 486 unique clinics with 1156 clinic years of total observations. The average baseline screening rate was 41 % with average annual increase of 4.6 percentage points. Only two out of six combinations of any two EBIs were associated with increases in screening rate (largest was 6.5 percentage points, P < 0.001). Any combinations involving three EBIs or all four EBIs were significantly associated with the outcome with largest increase of 7.2 percentage points (P < 0.001). All interventions involving 2-3 strategies led to increases in rate with largest increase associated with the combination of increasing community demand and access (6.1 percentage points, P < 0.001). Clinics implementing combinations of these EBIs, particularly those including three or more EBIs, often were more likely to have impact on screening rate change than those implementing none.

Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics.

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Evaluating Uptake of Evidence-Based Interventions in 355 Clinics Partnering With the Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2015-2018.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers). EVALUATION METHODS: Clinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs. RESULTS: In our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Clinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions.

Operationalizing Leadership and Clinician Buy-In to Implement Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Programs in Routine Oncology Care: A Mixed-Method Study of the U.S. Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Delivering evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment in oncology settings improves smoking abstinence and cancer outcomes. Leadership engagement/buy-in is critical for implementation success, but few studies have defined buy-in or described how to secure buy-in for tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) in cancer care. This study examines buy-in during the establishment of tobacco treatment programs at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. METHODS: We utilized a sequential, explanatory mixed-methods approach to analyze quantitative data and qualitative interviews with program leads in the U.S.-based NCI Moonshot-supported Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (n = 20 Centers). We calculated descriptive statistics and applied structural coding and content analysis to qualitative data. RESULTS: At least 75% of participating centers secured health care system administrative, clinical, and IT leadership buy-in and support. Six themes emerged from interviews: engaging leadership, access to resources, leveraging federal funding support to build leadership interest, designating champions, identifying training needs, and ensuring staff roles and IT systems support workflows. CONCLUSIONS: Buy-in among staff and clinicians is defined by the belief that the TTP is necessary, valuable, and evidence based. Recognizing and securing these dimensions of buy-in can facilitate implementation success, leading to improved cancer outcomes.

Re-orienting transdisciplinary research and community-based participatory research for health equity.

Introduction: Transdisciplinary (TD) research and community-based participatory research (CBPR) represent promising investigative approaches to ameliorate health disparities. Public investments in team-based TD research to address multifactorial public health problems have increased over the last two decades. Similarly, recognition that community participation in research and social action is essential to promoting health equity is reflected in increased prioritization of community engagement in research and practice. Yet, models that describe and guide the combined TD and CBPR approach are lacking. Methods: We utilized a qualitative, convergent parallel case study design that included document reviews and one-on-one interviews to assess how investigators from the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) initiative integrated TD team science and CBPR in their work, and what they perceived as the impact of that work on health equity. Results: Twenty-five CPHHD investigators and National Institutes of Health program staff participated in a one-on-one interview. Document and interview data informed the development of an iterative conceptual model of TD CBPR comprising five domains: problem focus, contexts, collaboration and partnership, outcomes, and societal impact of TD CBPR. Conclusions: TD team science and CBPR are integrally related; combining principles of both can facilitate more efficient, equitable progress toward team outcomes, improved population health, and increased health equity. This model could assist researchers and public health practitioners in designing community-relevant, scientifically rigorous research with practical implications for improving health and quality of life among marginalized populations.

Reach and effectiveness of the NCI Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Smoking cessation results in improved cancer treatment outcomes. However, the factors associated with successful implementation of cessation programs in cancer care settings are not well understood. This paper presents the reach the reach and effectiveness of cessation programs implemented in NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). An observational, cross-sectional study was conducted among C3I Cancer Centers from July 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019 (N = 38). Reach was calculated as the proportion of patients reporting current smoking that received cessation treatment and was analyzed overall and by organizational characteristics. Smoking abstinence rates were determined by the proportion of participants self-reporting smoking abstinence in the previous 7 and 30 days at 6 months after treatment. On average, nearly 30% of patients who smoked received any cessation treatment. In-person counseling was most implemented but reached an average of only 13.2% of patients who smoked. Although less frequently implemented, average reach was highest for counseling provided via an interactive voice response system (55.8%) and telephone-based counseling (18.7%). Reach was higher at centers with more established programs, electronic health record referral systems, and higher smoking prevalence. At 6-month follow-up, about a fifth of participants on average had not smoked in the past 7 days (21.7%) or past 30 days (18.6%). Variations in reach by organizational characteristics suggest that leadership engagement and investment in technology-facilitated programs may yield higher levels of reach. Understanding which implementation and intervention strategies facilitate greater cessation treatment reach and effectiveness could lead to improved outcomes among cancer patients who smoke.

Applying the lessons of implementation science to maximize feasibility and usability in team science intervention development.

The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has generated a substantial body of work detailing characteristics of effective teams. However, that knowledge has not been widely translated into accessible, active, actionable, evidence-based interventions to help translational teams enhance their team functioning and outcomes. Over the past decade, the field of Implementation Science has rapidly developed methods and approaches to increase the translation of biomedical research findings into clinical care, providing a roadmap for mitigating the challenges of developing interventions while maximizing feasibility and utility. Here, we propose an approach to intervention development using constructs from two Implementation Science frameworks, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance, to extend the Wisconsin Interventions for Team Science framework described in Rolland et al. 2021. These Implementation Science constructs can help SciTS researchers design, build, test, and disseminate interventions that meet the needs of both adopters, the institutional leadership that decides whether to adopt an intervention, and implementers, those actually using the intervention. Systematically considering the impact of design decisions on feasibility and usability may lead to the design of interventions that can quickly move from prototype to pilot test to pragmatic trials to assess their impact.

Enhancing translational team effectiveness: The Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science framework for translating empirically informed strategies into evidence-based interventions.

Achieving the clinical, public health, economic, and policy benefits of translational science requires the integration and application of findings across biomedical, clinical, and behavioral science and health policy, and thus, collaboration across experts in these areas. To do so, translational teams need the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to mitigate challenges and build on strengths of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though these competencies are not innate to teams, they can be built through the implementation of effective strategies and interventions. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has contributed robust theories and evidence of empirically-informed strategies and best practices to enhance collaboration. Yet the field lacks methodological approaches to rigorously translate those strategies into evidence-based interventions to improve collaborative translational research. Here, we apply lessons from Implementation Science and Human-Centered Design & Engineering to describe the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science (WITS) framework, a process for translating established team science strategies into evidence-based interventions to bolster translational team effectiveness. To illustrate our use of WITS, we describe how University of Wisconsin's Institute for Clinical and Translational Research translated the existing Collaboration Planning framework into a robust, scalable, replicable intervention. We conclude with recommendations for future SciTS research to refine and test the framework.

"What Will Happen If I Say Yes?" Perspectives on a Standardized Firearm Access Question Among Adults With Depressive Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Addressing firearm access is recommended when patients are identified as being at risk of suicide. However, the practice of assessing firearm access is controversial, and no national guidelines exist to inform practice. This study qualitatively explored patient perspectives on a routine question about firearm access to optimize the patient centeredness of this practice in the context of suicide risk. METHODS: Electronic health record data were used to identify primary care patients reporting depressive symptoms, including suicidal thoughts, within 2 weeks of sampling. Participants completed a semistructured telephone interview (recorded and transcribed), which focused broadly on the experience of being screened for suicidality and included specific questions to elicit beliefs and opinions about being asked a standard firearm access question. Directive (deductive) and conventional (inductive) content analysis was used to analyze responses to the portion of the interview focused on firearm assessment and disclosure. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients in Washington State ages 20-95 completed the qualitative interview by phone. Organizing themes included apprehensions about disclosing access to firearms related to privacy, autonomy, and firearm ownership rights; perceptions regarding relevance of the firearm question, informed by experiences with suicidality and common beliefs and misconceptions about the inevitability of suicide; and suggestions for connecting questions about firearms and other lethal means to suicide risk. CONCLUSIONS: Clarifying the purpose and use of routine firearm access assessment, contextualizing firearm questions within injury prevention broadly, and addressing misconceptions about suicide prevention may help encourage disclosure of firearm access and increase the patient centeredness of this practice.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications. METHODS: We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs. RESULTS: Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129-$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122-$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17-$573), materials ($6-$435), training ($96-$516), technology ($171-$2759), and equipment ($10-$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70-$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330-$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications. CONCLUSIONS: Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Transdisciplinary research outcomes based on the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer II initiative experience.

Intractable public health problems are influenced by interacting multi-level factors. Dynamic research approaches in which teams of scientists collaborate beyond traditional disciplinary, institutional, and geographic boundaries have emerged as promising strategies to address pressing public health priorities. However, little prior work has identified, defined, and characterized the outcomes of transdisciplinary (TD) research undertaken to address public health problems. Through a mixed methods approach, we identify, define, and characterize TD outcomes and their relevance to improving population health using the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) II initiative as a case example. In Phase I, TREC II leadership (n = 10) identified nine initial TD outcomes. In Phase II (web-based survey; n = 23) and Phase III (interviews; n = 26; and focus groups, n = 23) TREC members defined and characterized each outcome. The resulting nine outcomes are described. The nine complementary TD outcomes can be used as a framework to evaluate progress toward impact on complex public health problems. Strategic investment in infrastructure that supports team development and collaboration, such as a coordination center, cross-center working groups, annual funded developmental projects, and face-to-face meetings, may foster achievement of these outcomes. This exploratory work provides a basis for the future investigation and development of quantitative measurement tools to assess the achievement of TD outcomes that are relevant to solving multifactorial public health problems.

Oncology provider and African-American breast cancer survivor perceptions of the emotional experience of transitioning to survivorship.

PURPOSE: To examine the emotional experience of African American breast cancer survivors (BCS), and the information exchange between providers and patients, during transitioning to post-treatment survivorship. RESEARCH APPROACH: We conducted a qualitative study using interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We sought perspectives of oncology providers (n = 27) and African-American breast cancer survivors (BCS) (n = 45) who provided and received care in three counties in Washington State. METHODS: African-American community consultants conducted interviews and focus groups. Thematic coding and constant comparison were applied to identify emergent themes. FINDINGS: Participants reported emotional health information and support were needed but not consistently provided, resulting in a sense of survivor isolation. Systemic challenges limited providers' ability to deliver emotional support information. Survivors and providers expressed similar understandings of the emotional impact of transition, but each group highlighted different, yet complementary priorities to address emotional needs of African-American BCS. CONCLUSIONS: There is congruence between African-American BCS and oncology providers perceptions of the emotional experience of transitioning to post-treatment survivorship, but patients are not receiving adequate information and resources to help them adequately address their emotional needs. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY: Improved care continuity, team-based approaches, and partnerships between health systems and community organization partnerships may help patients and providers recognize and address emotional needs during the transition.

Text Message Preferences for Surveillance Colonoscopy Reminders Among Colorectal Cancer Survivors.

Background. Surveillance colonoscopy 1-year after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery effectively reduces CRC mortality, yet less than half of survivors undergo this procedure. Text message reminders can improve CRC screening and other health behaviors, but use of this strategy to address barriers to CRC surveillance has not been reported. Objectives. The goal of this qualitative study was to assess CRC survivor perspectives on barriers to colonoscopy to inform the design of a theory-based, short message service (SMS) intervention to increase surveillance colonoscopy utilization. Method. CRC survivors in Western Washington participated in one of two focus groups to explore perceived barriers to completing surveillance colonoscopy and preferences for SMS communication. Content analysis using codes representative of the health belief model and prospect theory constructs were applied to qualitative data. Results. Thirteen CRC survivors reported individual-, interpersonal-, and system-level barriers to surveillance colonoscopy completion. Participants were receptive to receiving SMS reminders to mitigate these barriers. They suggested that reminders offer supportive, loss-framed messaging; include educational content; and be personalized to communication preferences. Finally, they recommended that reminders begin no earlier than 9 months following CRC surgery and not include response prompts. Conclusions. Our study demonstrates that CRC survivors perceive SMS reminders as an acceptable, valuable tool for CRC surveillance. Furthermore, there may be value in integrating theoretical frameworks to design, implement, and evaluate SMS interventions to address barriers to CRC surveillance. As physicians play a key role in CRC surveillance, provider- and system-level interventions that could additively improve the impact of SMS interventions are also worth exploring.

Beliefs about benefits and harms of medications and supplements for brain health.

The role of medications and supplements for brain health is a fast-changing and growing field, making it difficult for patients to receive updated and accurate information. The objective of this study was to assess patients' beliefs about the helpfulness or harmfulness of various medications and supplements on brain health. A convenience sample of adults from an integrated healthcare system completed a web-based survey. Descriptive statistics were used for this hypothesis-generating study. A total of 1661 respondents completed the survey. The majority of respondents were female (77%), between the ages of 51-70 (64%), and white (89%). Across the selected medications and supplements purported to improve a person's brain health (vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, hormones such as estrogen or testosterone, fish oil, and statins), 46-64% of respondents reported not knowing or skipped the item regarding their helpfulness to improve brain health. One out of four respondents reported benefits of vitamin E and nearly half reported benefits of fish oil on brain health; neither benefit is supported by current evidence. For the two medication classes evaluated for increasing dementia risk (proton pump inhibitors and anticholinergics used as sleep aids), 63-77% of respondents reported not knowing or skipped the item regarding their harmfulness to brain health. Survey respondents largely reported not knowing the potential benefits and harms of different medications and supplements for brain health. Improved health communication on pharmaceutical effects on dementia risk is greatly needed, and its development and dissemination should involve healthcare providers, patients, and media outlets.