Introduction

Since 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).

Methods

We conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.

Results

CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).

Conclusion

Results suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program's potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.

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.

INTRODUCTION: The Allocation System for changes in Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) study was a hybrid type 1 trial of a multicomponent intervention among 655 US dialysis facilities with low kidney transplant waitlisting to educate staff and patients about kidney allocation system (KAS) changes and increase access to and reduce racial disparities in waitlisting. Intervention components included a staff webinar, patient and staff educational videos, and facility-specific feedback reports. METHODS: Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework. Postimplementation surveys were administered among intervention group facilities (n = 334); interviews were conducted with facility staff (n = 6). High implementation was defined as using 3 to 4 intervention components, low implementation as using 1 to 2 components, and nonimplementation as using no components. RESULTS: A total of 331 (99%) facilities completed the survey; 57% were high implementers, 31% were low implementers, and 12% were nonimplementers. Waitlisting events were higher or similar among high versus low implementer facilities for incident and prevalent populations; for Black incident patients, the mean proportion waitlisted in low implementer facilities was 0.80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.87) at baseline and 0.55% at 1-year (95% CI: 0.48-0.62) versus 0.83% (95% CI: 0.78-0.88) at baseline and 1.40% at 1-year (95% CI: 1.35-1.45) in high implementer facilities. Interviews revealed that the intervention helped facilities prioritize transplant education, but that intervention components were not uniformly shared. CONCLUSION: The findings provide important context to interpret ASCENT effectiveness results and identified key barriers and facilitators to consider for future modification and scale-up of multilevel, multicomponent interventions in dialysis settings.

It is unknown whether dialysis facility staff are aware of the new kidney allocation system implemented in December 2014, which changed how deceased donor kidneys are allocated and waiting time is calculated. U.S. dialysis facilities with low annual waitlisting (<15.2%) were surveyed as part of a large randomized study. Among 653 facilities, 57.9% of staff were aware of the policy change, with medical directors (84.4%) being more aware than social workers (73.3%), facility administrators (53.1%), nurse managers (46.4%), and other staff (43.8%). Targeted education among dialysis facilities with low waitlisting may help extend the reach of the new policy.

INTRODUCTION: The Allocation System Changes for Equity in Kidney Transplantation (ASCENT) trial was a cluster-randomized pragmatic, effectiveness-implementation study designed to test whether a multicomponent educational intervention targeting leadership, clinic staff, and patients in dialysis facilities improved knowledge and awareness of the 2014 Kidney Allocation System (KAS) change. METHODS: Participants included 690 dialysis facility medical directors, nephrologists, social workers, and other staff within 655 US dialysis facilities, with 51% (n = 334) in the intervention group and 49% (n = 321) in the control group. Intervention activities included a webinar targeting medical directors and facility staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting dialysis staff, an approximately 10-minute educational video targeting patients, and a facility-specific audit and feedback report of transplant performance. The control group received a standard United Network for Organ Sharing brochure. Provider knowledge was a secondary outcome of the ASCENT trial and the primary outcome of this study; knowledge was assessed as a cumulative score on a 5-point Likert scale (higher score = greater knowledge). Intention-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS: At baseline, nonintervention providers had a higher mean knowledge score (mean ± SD, 2.45 ± 1.43) than intervention providers (mean ± SD, 2.31 ± 1.46). After 3 months, the average knowledge score was slightly higher in the intervention (mean ± SD, 3.14 ± 1.28) versus nonintervention providers (mean ± SD, 3.07 ± 1.24), and the estimated mean difference in knowledge scores between the groups at follow-up minus the mean difference at baseline was 0.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11-0.48; P = 0.039). The effect size (0.41) was low to moderate. CONCLUSION: Dialysis facility provider education could help extend the impact of a national policy change in organ allocation.

Background

Practitioners often require training and technical assistance to build their capacity to select, adapt, and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to promote CRC screening to increase population-level screening. This study identified the training and technical assistance (TA) needs and preferences for training related to the implementation of EBIs among CRCCP grantees.

Methods

Twenty-nine CRCCP grantees completed an online survey about their screening activities, training and technical assistance in 2012. They rated desire for training on various evidence-based strategies to increase cancer screening, evidence-based competencies, and program management topics. They also reported preferences for training formats and facilitators and barriers to trainings.

Results

Many CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding finding EBIs, assessing organizational capacity, implementing selected EBIs, and conducting process and outcome evaluations. Other desired training topics reported with higher frequency were partnership development and data collection/evaluation. Grantees preferred training formats that were interactive such as on-site trainings, webinars or expert consultants.

Conclusions

Public health organizations need greater supports for adopting evidence-based interventions, working with organizational-level change, partnership development and data management. Future capacity building efforts for the adoption of EBIs should focus on systems or provider level interventions and key processes for health promotion and should be delivered in a variety of ways to assist local organizations in cancer prevention and control.

Purpose and objectives

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation.

Intervention approach

CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates.

Evaluation methods

We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation.

Results

Most grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity.

Implications for public health

CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

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.

Context

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers affecting both men and women in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supports both direct clinical screening services (screening provision) and activities to promote screening at the population level (screening promotion).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to characterize patient navigation (PN) programs for screening provision and promotion for the first 1 to 2 years of program funding.

Participants

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the 29 CRCCP grantees (25 states and 4 tribal organizations) and 14 in-depth interviews to assess program implementation.

Main outcome measures

The survey and interview guide collected information on CRC screening provision and promotion activities and PN, including the structure of the PN program, characteristics of the navigators, funding mechanism, and navigators' activities.

Results

Twenty-four of 28 CRCCP grantees of the survey used PN for screening provision whereas 18 grantees used navigation for screening promotion. Navigators were often trained in nursing or public health. Navigation activities were similar for both screening provision and promotion, and common tasks included assessing and responding to patient barriers to screening, providing patient education, and scheduling appointments. For screening provision, activities centered on making reminder calls, educating patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopies, and tracking patients for completion of the tests. Navigation may influence screening quality by improving patients' bowel preparation for colonoscopies.

Conclusions

Our study provides insights into PN across a federally funded CRC program. Results suggest that PN activities may be instrumental in recruiting people into cancer screening and ensuring completed screening and follow-up.

Purpose

To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes.

Results

Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond.

Conclusion

CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.