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.