Dissemination and Implementation of a Google Apple Exposure Notification System for COVID-19 Risk Mitigation at a National Public University: Protocol for a Pilot Evaluation Study in a Real-World Setting.

BACKGROUND: As SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, spread rapidly across the United States in the spring of 2020, institutions of higher education faced numerous challenges associated with minimizing risk of exposure to COVID-19 among their students, faculty, staff, and surrounding communities. This paper describes the protocol, South Carolina (SC) Safer Together, developed by Clemson University (Clemson) to design, deploy, and evaluate multi-level communication and dissemination and implementation (D&I) strategies in line with recommendations from governmental and educational agencies to mitigate the risk of exposure to COVID-19. Safer Together was enhanced by the addition of the Google/Apple Exposure Notification app, an alternative strategy to support a recommendation of COVID-19 testing outcomes: contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) describe the content and intended audiences of D&I strategies used to deploy recommended COVID-19 mitigation strategies on a major college campus; (2) determine the reach, acceptability, adoption, and use of D&I strategies among target audiences among university students, faculty, and staff; and (3) characterize barriers and facilitators to the implementation and use of recommended mitigation strategies. METHODS: The study team incorporated elements of the Health Belief Model, the Technology Acceptance Model, communication and social marketing models, and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify and develop appropriate constructs and specific outcomes for inclusion in our approach to evaluate the communication, dissemination and implementation processes related to deployment of Safer Together at Clemson. A parallel convergent mixed methods design was used to (1) inform implementation strategies used to launch the program and (2) evaluate program reach, acceptability, adoption, and use guided by the RE-AIM framework. Data collection tools include surveys, data analytics-tracking, and focus groups or interviews with key stakeholders (students, employees, and university leadership). RESULTS: Rigorously studying both the dissemination and implementation of Safer Together in a national public university setting is expected to yield lessons that will be valuable at many organizational and governmental settings. On a local level, broad adoption and use of the Safer Together may help reduce COVID-19 transmission and keep the university "open." On a larger scale, lessons learned on how to influence student and employee behavior with respect to the use of a public health outbreak prevention tool including Safer Together may be applicable in future pandemic and outbreak situations. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes a structured, theory-driven approach to evaluate dissemination and implementation strategies associated with the deployment of Safer Together in a university setting from the viewpoint of students, employees, and university leadership. Our results will inform future implementation of apps such as Safer Together at major state universities in SC. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32567.

Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services.

CONTEXT: Screening reduces mortality from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The Guide to Community Preventive Services previously conducted systematic reviews on the effectiveness of 11 interventions to increase screening for these cancers. This article presents results of updated systematic reviews for nine of these interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Five databases were searched for studies published during January 2004-October 2008. Studies had to (1) be a primary investigation of one or more intervention category; (2) be conducted in a country with a high-income economy; (3) provide information on at least one cancer screening outcome of interest; and (4) include screening use prior to intervention implementation or a concurrent group unexposed to the intervention category of interest. Forty-five studies were included in the reviews. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Recommendations were added for one-on-one education to increase screening with fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and group education to increase mammography screening. Strength of evidence for client reminder interventions to increase FOBT screening was upgraded from sufficient to strong. Previous findings and recommendations for reducing out-of-pocket costs (breast cancer screening); provider assessment and feedback (breast, cervical, and FOBT screening); one-on-one education and client reminders (breast and cervical cancer screening); and reducing structural barriers (breast cancer and FOBT screening) were reaffirmed or unchanged. Evidence remains insufficient to determine effectiveness for the remaining screening tests and intervention categories. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate new and reaffirmed interventions effective in promoting recommended cancer screening, including colorectal cancer screening. Findings can be used in community and healthcare settings to promote recommended care. Important research gaps also are described.