Meghan C. O'LEary

We implemented a centralized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with navigation to follow-up colonoscopy for community health center (CHC) patients

Purpose The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aimed to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among U.S. medically underserved populations through promotion and provision of CRC screening. We used simulation modeling to estimate the lifelong health impact and program cost-effectiveness of direct screening services, typically a single cycle of routine screening/follow-up testing provided through the CRCCP (“intervention”). Methods Data for this study were from CDC’s Colorectal Clinical Data Elements (CCDE), which captured screening and follow-up services received from CRCCP between 2009 and 2020. We used microsimulation to model the evolution of polyps and CRC for average-risk individuals in intervention and “counterfactual” (control) groups, under multiple scenarios. We calculated and compared lifetime CRC outcomes (cases, deaths, life-years) for individuals with and without the CRCCP intervention. Clinical and implementation costs incurred by the CRCCP were used to estimate programmatic/intervention costs. Results are reported overall and by initial screening modality received (colonoscopy or stool testing) and assumed lower vs. higher “background” (non-intervention) screening scenarios. Results With conservative assumptions, our findings suggest that CRCCP-provided screening averted 806 CRC cases, avoided 392 CRC deaths, and added 5,368 life-years per 100,000 individuals vs. no intervention. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that the program’s cost per life-year gained varied by screening modality and scenario assumptions—ranging from $25,740 to $27,583 for colonoscopy screening and $70,410 to $75,979 for stool testing. Conclusion CRCCP-provided screening/testing services were found to produce substantial potential health gains. Our analysis estimates the cost-effectiveness of providing one cycle of screening/testing to medically underserved individuals to inform programmatic decisions.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems can be used to engage patients in remote symptom monitoring to support postoperative care. We interviewed thoracic surgery patients with ePRO experience to identify factors that influenced use of ePROs to report their symptoms post-discharge. Method: This qualitative study used semi-structured telephone interviews with adults who underwent major thoracic surgery at an academic medical center in North Carolina. Individuals who enrolled in symptom monitoring, completed at least one ePRO survey, and were reachable by phone for the interview were included. The ePRO surveys assessed 10 symptoms, including validated Patient-Reported Outcome Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measures and thoracic surgery-specific questions. Surveys, offered via web-based and automated telephone options, were administered for four weeks post-discharge with alerts sent to clinicians for concerning symptoms. The interviews were guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation model for behavior change (COM-B) and examined factors that influenced patients’ completion of ePRO surveys post-discharge. Team members independently coded interviews and identified themes, informed by COM-B. We report descriptive statistics (demographics, number of surveys completed) and themes organized by COM-B components. Results: Of 28 patients invited, 25 (89%) completed interviews from July to October 2022. Participants were a median 58 years, 56% female, 80% White, and 56% had a history of malignancy. They completed 131/150 (87%) possible ePRO surveys. For capability, participants reported building ePROs into their routine and having the skills and knowledge, but lacking physical and emotional energy, to complete ePROs. For opportunity, participants identified the ease and convenience of accessing ePROs and providers’ validation of ePROs. Motivators were perceived benefits of a deepening connection to their clinical team, improved symptom management for themselves and others, and self-reflection about their recovery. Factors limiting motivation included lack of clarity about the purpose of ePROs and a disconnect between symptom items and individual recovery experience. Conclusions: Patients described being motivated to complete ePROs when reinforced by clinicians and considered ePROs as valuable to their post-discharge experience. Future work should enhance ePRO patient education, improve provider alerts and communications about ePROs, and integrate options to capture patients’ complex health journeys.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess acceptability of using process flow diagrams (or process maps) depicting a previously implemented evidence-based intervention (EBI) to inform the implementation of similar interventions in new settings. Methods: We developed three different versions of process maps, each visualizing the implementation of the same multicomponent colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBI in community health centers but including varying levels of detail about how it was implemented. Interviews with community health professionals and practitioners at other sites not affiliated with this intervention were conducted. We assessed their preferences related to the map designs, their potential utility for guiding EBI implementation, and the feasibility of implementing a similar intervention in their local setting given the information available in the process maps. Results: Eleven community health representatives were interviewed. Participants were able to understand how the intervention was implemented and engage in discussions around the feasibility of implementing this type of complex intervention in their local system. Potential uses of the maps for supporting implementation included staff training, role delineation, monitoring and quality control, and adapting the components and implementation activities of the existing intervention. Conclusion: Process maps can potentially support decision-making about the adoption, implementation, and adaptation of existing EBIs in new contexts. Given the complexities involved in deciding whether and how to implement EBIs, these diagrams serve as visual, easily understood tools to inform potential future adopters of the EBI about the activities, resources, and staffing needed for implementation.

Background: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? Methods: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention’s core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. Results: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. Conclusions: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Purpose: We assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45–49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake. Methods: In February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45–49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention. Results: We mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6–17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45–49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9–22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months. Conclusion: CRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45–49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Purpose: We aimed to understand how an interactive, web-based simulation tool can be optimized to support decision-making about the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for improving colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Methods: Interviews were conducted with decision-makers, including health administrators, advocates, and researchers, with a strong foundation in CRC prevention. Following a demonstration of the microsimulation modeling tool, participants reflected on the tool’s potential impact for informing the selection and implementation of strategies for improving CRC screening and outcomes. The interviews assessed participants’ preferences regarding the tool’s design and content, comprehension of the model results, and recommendations for improving the tool. Results: Seventeen decision-makers completed interviews. Themes regarding the tool’s utility included building a case for EBI implementation, selecting EBIs to adopt, setting implementation goals, and understanding the evidence base. Reported barriers to guiding EBI implementation included the tool being too research-focused, contextual differences between the simulated and local contexts, and lack of specificity regarding the design of simulated EBIs. Recommendations to address these challenges included making the data more actionable, allowing users to enter their own model inputs, and providing a how-to guide for implementing the simulated EBIs. Conclusion: Diverse decision-makers found the simulation tool to be most useful for supporting early implementation phases, especially deciding which EBI(s) to implement. To increase the tool’s utility, providing detailed guidance on how to implement the selected EBIs, and the extent to which users can expect similar CRC screening gains in their contexts, should be prioritized.

Background: Economic evaluations of the implementation of health-related evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are conducted infrequently and, when performed, often use a limited set of quantitative methods to estimate the cost and effectiveness of EBIs. These studies often underestimate the resources required to implement and sustain EBIs in diverse populations and settings, in part due to inadequate scoping of EBI boundaries and underutilization of methods designed to understand the local context. We call for increased use of diverse methods, especially the integration of quantitative and qualitative approaches, for conducting and better using economic evaluations and related insights across all phases of implementation.Main body: We describe methodological opportunities by implementation phase to develop more comprehensive and context-specific estimates of implementation costs and downstream impacts of EBI implementation, using the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. We focus specifically on the implementation of complex interventions, which are often multi-level, resource-intensive, multicomponent, heterogeneous across sites and populations, involve many stakeholders and implementation agents, and change over time with respect to costs and outcomes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening EBIs as examples, we outline several approaches to specifying the “boundaries” of EBI implementation and analyzing implementation costs by phase of implementation. We describe how systems mapping and stakeholder engagement methods can be used to clarify EBI implementation costs and guide data collection—particularly important when EBIs are complex. In addition, we discuss the use of simulation modeling with sensitivity/uncertainty analyses within implementation studies for projecting the health and economic impacts of investment in EBIs. Finally, we describe how these results, enhanced by careful data visualization, can inform selection, adoption, adaptation, and sustainment of EBIs.Conclusion: Health economists and implementation scientists alike should draw from a larger menu of methods for estimating the costs and outcomes associated with complex EBI implementation and employ these methods across the EPIS phases. Our prior experiences using qualitative and systems approaches in addition to traditional quantitative methods provided rich data for informing decision-making about the value of investing in CRC screening EBIs and long-term planning for these health programs. Future work should consider additional opportunities for mixed-method approaches to economic evaluations.