Objective

To operationalize constructs from each of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains and to present psychometric properties within the context of evidence-based approaches for promoting colorectal cancer screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).

Methods

Data were collected from FQHC clinics across seven states. A web-based Staff Survey and a Clinic Characteristics Survey were completed by staff and leaders (n = 277) from 59 FQHCs.

Results

Internal reliability of scales was adequate ranging from 0.62 for compatibility to 0.88 for other personal attributes (openness). Intraclass correlations for the scales indicated that 2.4 percent to 20.9 percent of the variance in scale scores occurs within clinics. Discriminant validity was adequate at the clinic level, with all correlations less than 0.75. Convergent validity was more difficult to assess given lack of hypothesized associations between factors expected to predict implementation.

Conclusions

Our results move the field forward by describing initial psychometric properties of constructs across CFIR domains.

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.

Multiple evidence-based approaches (EBAs) exist to improve colorectal cancer screening in health clinics. The success of these approaches is tied to effective implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of EBAs for colorectal cancer screening and clinic-level correlates of implementation in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We conducted descriptive and cross-sectional analyses using data collected from FQHC clinics across seven states ( n = 51). A clinic representative completed electronic surveys about clinic characteristics (e.g., size, patient characteristics, and medical record system characteristics) and the implementation of Community Guide recommended EBAs (e.g., client reminders, small media, and provider assessment and feedback). We used bivariate Spearman correlations to assess clinic-level correlates with implementation outcomes. Most clinics were planning to implement, in the early implementation stages, or inconsistently implementing EBAs. No EBA was fully implemented by more than nine (17.6%) clinics. Clinic size variables were inversely related to implementation levels of one-on-one education; medical record variables were directly related to implementation levels of client and provider reminders as well as provider assessment and feedback; and rapid and timely feedback from clinic leaders was directly associated with implementation levels of four out of six EBAs. Given the varying levels of implementation, clinics need to assess current use of implementation strategies and improve effective program delivery to increase colorectal cancer screening among their patients. In addition, clinics should also consider how their characteristics may support or serve as a barrier to implementation in their respective settings.

Background

Scientists and practitioners alike need reliable, valid measures of contextual factors that influence implementation. Yet, few existing measures demonstrate reliability or validity. To meet this need, we developed and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of several constructs within the Inner Setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Methods

We searched the literature for existing measures for the 7 Inner Setting domain constructs (Culture Overall, Culture Stress, Culture Effort, Implementation Climate, Learning Climate, Leadership Engagement, and Available Resources). We adapted items for the healthcare context, pilot-tested the adapted measures in 4 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and implemented the revised measures in 78 FQHCs in the 7 states (N = 327 respondents) with a focus on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices. To psychometrically assess our measures, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA; structural validity), assessed inter-item consistency (reliability), computed scale correlations (discriminant validity), and calculated inter-rater reliability and agreement (organization-level construct reliability and validity).

Results

CFAs for most constructs exhibited good model fit (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, RMSEA < 0.08), with almost all factor loadings exceeding 0.40. Scale reliabilities ranged from good (0.7 ≤ α < 0.9) to excellent (α ≥ 0.9). Scale correlations fell below 0.90, indicating discriminant validity. Inter-rater reliability and agreement were sufficiently high to justify measuring constructs at the clinic-level.

Conclusions

Our findings provide psychometric evidence in support of the CFIR Inner Setting measures. Our findings also suggest the Inner Setting measures from individuals can be aggregated to represent the clinic-level. Measurement of the Inner Setting constructs can be useful in better understanding and predicting implementation in FQHCs and can be used to identify targets of strategies to accelerate and enhance implementation efforts in FQHCs.

Background

Although cancer research has advanced at a rapid pace, a gap remains between what is known about how to improve cancer prevention and control (CPC) and what is implemented as best practices within health care systems and communities. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN), with more than 10 years of dissemination and implementation research experience, aims to accelerate the uptake and use of evidence-based CPC interventions.

Methods

The collective work of the CPCRN has facilitated the analysis and categorization of research and implementation efforts according to the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF), providing a useful heuristic for bridging the gap between prevention research and practice. The ISF authors have called for examples of its application as input to help refine the model.

Results

We provide examples of how the collaborative activities supported by the CPCRN, using community-engaged processes, accelerated the synthesis and translation of evidence, built both general and innovation-specific capacity, and worked with delivery systems to advance cancer control research and practice.

Conclusions

The work of the CPCRN has provided real-world examples of the application of the ISF and demonstrated that synthesizing and translating evidence can increase the potential that evidence-based CPC programs will be used and that capacity building for both the support system and the delivery system is crucial for the successful implementation and maintenance of evidence-based cancer control.

Impact

Adoption and implementation of CPC can be enhanced by better understanding ISF systems and intervening to improve them.

Purpose

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been suggested to reduce fragmentation of care experienced by cancer survivors. Acceptance of SCPs is high, but trials in the United States are few. This pilot study used a quasiexperimental design to examine the outcomes achieved by breast cancer survivors receiving a standardized SCP visit at one of seven comprehensive cancer centers.

Materials and methods

Outcomes were assessed before and again 3 months after delivery of an SCP and included survivors' use of and satisfaction with SCPs, perceived knowledge about survivorship, and assessment of the quality and coordination of survivorship care.

Results

One hundred thirty-nine survivors of breast cancer completed baseline and follow-up measures and received a standardized SCP visit. Participants most commonly used SCP materials to make decisions about exercise (64%), which tests to receive and when (62%), and dietary changes (62%). Only 21% shared the SCP with their primary care provider during that time. Satisfaction with the SCP was high, with 90% of participants reporting being at least satisfied with the SCP. Perceived knowledge about survivorship improved after SCP delivery, as did perceived care coordination and the provider's knowledge of the effects of cancer on survivors (all P < .001). Individuals closer to the time of diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of SCPs.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates improvements in perceived knowledge and quality of survivorship care after receipt of a comprehensive SCP. Survivors were satisfied with their SCP, and those closer to diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of the materials.

Background

Special events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.

Methods

Articles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.

Results

Of the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.

Conclusions

Special events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

Background

Enhancing the capability of community health centers to implement best practices (BPs) may mitigate health disparities. This study investigated the association of practice adaptive reserve (PAR) with the implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening BPs at community health center clinics in 7 states.

Methods

A convenience sample of clinic staff participated in a self-administered, online survey. Eight PCMH CRC screening BPs were scored as a composite ranging from 0 to 32. The PAR composite score was scaled from 0 to 1 and then categorized into 3 levels. Multilevel analyses examined the relation between PAR and self-reported implementation of PCMH BPs.

Results

There were 296 respondents, and 59% reported 6 or more PCMH BPs at their clinics. The mean PAR score was 0.66 (standard deviation, 0.18), and the PCMH BP mean scores were significantly higher for respondents who reported higher clinic PAR categories. In comparison with the lowest PAR level, adjusted PCMH BP means were 25.0% higher at the middle PAR level (difference, 3.2; standard error, 1.3; t = 2.44; P = .015) and 63.2% higher at the highest PAR level (difference, 8.0; standard error, 1.9; t = 4.86; P < .0001).

Conclusions

A higher adaptive reserve, as measured by the PAR score, was positively associated with self-reported implementation of PCMH CRC screening BPs by clinic staff. Future research is needed to determine the PAR levels most conducive to implementing CRC screening and to develop interventions that enhance PAR in primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Special events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening. METHODS: Articles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers. RESULTS: Of the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Special events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

BACKGROUND:The impact of cancer and its treatment on employment and financial burden in adolescents/young adults (AYAs) is not fully known. METHODS:Eligibility for this cross-sectional study of AYA cancer survivors included the diagnosis of a malignancy between ages 18 and 39 years and survey completion within 1 to 5 years from diagnosis and ≥1 year after therapy completion. Participants were selected randomly from the tumor registries of 7 participating sites and completed an online patient-reported outcomes survey to assess employment and financial concerns. Treatment data were abstracted from medical records. Data were analyzed across diagnoses and by tumor site using logistic regression and Wald-based 95% confidence intervals adjusting for age (categorized), sex, insurance status, education (categorized), and treatment exposures. RESULTS:Participants included 872 survivors (breast cancer, n = 241; thyroid cancer, n = 126; leukemia/lymphoma, n = 163; other malignancies, n = 342). Exposure to chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors was associated with an increase in self-reported mental impairment in work tasks (odds ratio [OR], 2.66) and taking unpaid time off (OR, 2.62); survivors of "other" malignancies reported an increase in mental impairment of work tasks (OR, 3.67) and borrowing >$10,000 (OR, 3.43). Radiation exposure was associated with an increase of mental impairment in work tasks (OR, 2.05) in breast cancer survivors, taking extended paid time off work in thyroid cancer survivors (OR, 5.05), and physical impairment in work tasks in survivors of "other" malignancies (OR, 3.11). Finally, in survivors of "other" malignancies, having undergone surgery was associated with an increase in physical (OR, 3.11) and mental impairment (OR, 2.31) of work tasks. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer treatment has a significant impact on AYA survivors' physical and mental work capacity and time off from work.