Mailed FIT (fecal immunochemical test), navigation or patient reminders? Using microsimulation to inform selection of interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening in Medicaid enrollees

Mailed Outreach and Patient Navigation for Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Rural Medicaid Enrollees: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Approximately 60 million adults live in rural regions of the US, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and follow-up. Rural residents enrolled in Medicaid have particularly low CRC screening and follow-up rates.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness and implementation of a collaborative Medicaid health plan-clinic program of mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result when implemented in rural clinics as part of standard care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 28 rural clinic units in Oregon affiliated with 3 Medicaid health plans. The clinics were randomized to the intervention (n = 14) or to usual care (n = 14). Participants were Medicaid enrollees (aged 50-75 years) due for CRC screening. The intervention was delivered from May 11, 2021, through June 4, 2022, and analyses were performed from June 2023 through September 2024.

Intervention

The stepwise intervention involved (1) mailed FIT outreach and (2) patient navigation to colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. Implementation support included practice facilitation, training, collaborative learning, and patient tracking tools.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary effectiveness outcome was completion of any CRC screening within 6 months of eligibility determination. An additional effectiveness outcome was follow-up colonoscopy completion within 6 months of an abnormal FIT result. Implementation was measured as (1) the proportion of intervention-eligible enrollees who were mailed an FIT and who were sent an advance notification or reminder and (2) the proportion with an abnormal FIT result who were offered patient navigation.

Results

This study included 5614 Medicaid enrollees (2613 in intervention clinics and 3001 in usual care clinics). Enrollees had a mean (SD) age of 58.2 (5.5) years; most (4940 [88.0%]) were aged 50 to 64 years. A total of 2948 enrollees (52.5%) were female, 325 (6.2%) were Hispanic and 3774 (67.2%) were White, and 4457 (79.4%) lived in rural regions. Compared with Medicaid enrollees in usual care clinics, enrollees in intervention clinics had a higher adjusted 6-month proportion of any CRC screening completion (11.8% vs 4.5%; difference, 7.3 [95% CI, 5.3-9.2] percentage points). Implementation was 100% (all 1489 intervention-eligible enrollees) for mailed FIT outreach, 88.5% for advance notification, 78.1% for reminders, and 57.9% for patient navigation.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial of rural clinics, mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation boosted participation in CRC screening among Medicaid enrollees. More efforts are needed to address low participation in both FIT testing and follow-up colonoscopy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04890054.

Improving uptake of colorectal cancer screening by complex patients at an academic primary care practice: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Regular screening reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The Canton of Vaud, Switzerland, has a regional screening programme offering faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) or colonoscopy. Participation in the screening programme has been low, particularly among complex patients. Patient navigation has strong evidence for increasing the CRC screening rate.

DESIGN AND OBJECTIVE

This feasibility study tested patient navigation performed by medical assistants for complex patients at an academic primary care practice.

BASELINE MEASUREMENTS

A review of 328 patients' medical charts revealed that 51% were up-to-date with screening (16% within the programme), 24% were ineligible, 5% had a documented refusal and 20% were not up-to-date, of whom 58 (18%) were complex patients. INTERVENTION FEBRUARY 2023 TO MAY 2023: We tried to help complex patients participate in the screening programme using either in-person or telephone patient navigation. Each intervention was piloted by a physician-researcher and then performed by a medical assistant. Based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance framework, we collected: Intervention participation and refusal, screening acceptance and completion and both patients and medical assistant acceptability (ie, qualitative interviews).

RESULTS

Only 4/58 (7%) patients participated in the in-person patient navigation test phase due to scheduling problems. All four patients accepted a prescription and 2/4 (50%) completed their test. We piloted a telephone intervention to bypass scheduling issues but all patients refused a telephone discussion with the medical assistant. At two months after the last intervention, the proportion of patients up-to-date increased from 51% to 56%.

CONCLUSION

Our overall approach was resource-intensive and had little impact on the overall participation rate. It was likely not sustainable. New approaches and reimbursement for a specific patient navigator role are needed to increase CRC screening of complex patients.

Costs and Projected Effect of a Federally Qualified Health Center-Based Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Texas

Introduction

Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches.

Methods

We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program.

Conclusions

A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas

BACKGROUND

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation are evidence-based practices shown to improve rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) and follow-up in various settings, yet these programs have not been broadly adopted by health systems and organizations that serve diverse populations. Reasons for low adoption rates are multifactorial, and little research explores approaches for scaling up a complex, multi-level CRC screening outreach intervention to advance equity in rural settings.

METHODS

SMARTER CRC, a National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot project, is a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed FIT and patient navigation program involving 3 Medicaid health plans and 28 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho followed by a national scale-up trial. The SMARTER CRC intervention combines mailed FIT outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal FIT result. We applied the framework from Perez and colleagues to identify the intervention's components (including functions and forms) and scale-up dissemination strategies and worked with a national advisory board to support scale-up to additional organizations. The team is recruiting health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations in the USA that serve a rural population. To teach organizations about the intervention, activities include Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) tele-mentoring learning collaboratives, a facilitation guide and other materials, a patient navigation workshop, webinars, and individualized technical assistance. Our primary outcome is program adoption (by component), measured 6 months after participation in an ECHO learning collaborative. We also assess engagement and adaptations (implemented and desired) to learn how the multicomponent intervention might be modified to best support broad scale-up.

DISCUSSION

Findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI's Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP no.: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Effort Required and Lessons Learned From Recruiting Health Plans and Rural Primary Care Practices for a Cancer Screening Outreach Study

INTRODUCTION

Recruiting organizations (i.e., health plans, health systems, or clinical practices) is important for implementation science, yet limited research explores effective strategies for engaging organizations in pragmatic studies. We explore the effort required to meet recruitment targets for a pragmatic implementation trial, characteristics of engaged and non-engaged clinical practices, and reasons health plans and rural clinical practices chose to participate.

METHODS

We explored recruitment activities and factors associated with organizational enrollment in SMARTER CRC, a randomized pragmatic trial to increase rates of CRC screening in rural populations. We sought to recruit 30 rural primary care practices within participating Medicaid health plans. We tracked recruitment outreach contacts, meeting content, and outcomes using tracking logs. Informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we analyzed interviews, surveys, and publicly available clinical practice data to identify facilitators of participation.

RESULTS

Overall recruitment activities spanned January 2020 to April 2021. Five of the 9 health plans approached agreed to participate (55%). Three of the health plans chose to operate centrally as 1 site based on network structure, resulting in 3 recruited health plan sites. Of the 101 identified practices, 76 met study eligibility criteria; 51% (n = 39) enrolled. Between recruitment and randomization, 1 practice was excluded, 5 withdrew, and 7 practices were collapsed into 3 sites for randomization purposes based on clinical practice structure, leaving 29 randomized sites. Successful recruitment required iterative outreach across time, with a range of 2 to 17 encounters per clinical practice. Facilitators to recruitment included multi-modal outreach, prior relationships, effective messaging, flexibility, and good timing.

CONCLUSION

Recruiting health plans and rural clinical practices was complex and iterative. Leveraging existing relationships and allocating time and resources to engage clinical practices in pragmatic implementation research may facilitate more diverse representation in future trials and generalizability of research findings.

Engaging stakeholders in the use of an interactive simulation tool to support decision-making about the implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions

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.

Implementing a mailed stool sample screening program in clinics providing care for an underserved Hispanic population

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Hispanics in the US. Despite this, Hispanics are being screened for CRC at a much lower rate than their non-Hispanic white counterparts. Implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is a cost-effective intervention for increasing CRC screening rates in vulnerable populations, such as Hispanic populations in border metroplexes. We aimed to describe the effect of introductory calls coupled with mailed in-home FIT kits on CRC screening completion in two federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in a US-Mexico border county. This was a prospective, pragmatic, two-arm intervention study with participants allocated to receive a FIT kit with a reminder call (usual care) or usual care preceded by an introductory call. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who returned the FIT kits. Participants who returned to the FIT were primarily unemployed (54.4%), had less than a high school education (60.2%), lived in the US for at least 20 years (74.4%), and had poor self-reported health (54.4%). In addition, we observed a statistically significant increase in the absolute rate (4.5%, P = 0.003) of FITs returned when a mailed FIT kit was preceded by an introductory call compared with no initial call. This study demonstrated that adding an introductory phone call significantly improved the screening completion rate in a mailed-out CRC screening intervention in the US-Mexico border population.

Data Challenges in Identifying Patients Due for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality are disproportionately high among rural residents despite the availability of effective screening methods. Outreach activities can improve CRC screening rates but rely on accurate identification of patients due for screening. We report on data challenges in rural clinics and Medicaid health plans in Oregon in identifying patients eligible for CRC screening, in a large project implementing mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and patient navigation.

METHODS

We analyzed data from clinic intake surveys and administrative claims. Clinics were asked to identify total population numbers relevant to CRC screening and follow-up. Health plans also identified enrollees eligible for CRC screening in Spring, 2021. Clinic staff validated patient lists for eligibility using their electronic health records (EHR).

RESULTS

EHR features varied across the 29 participating and 28 responding clinics. Among the 28 responding clinics, 21 were able to report their Medicaid population (75%), 19 reported the number of patients aged 50 to 75 (68%) and the number screened for CRC in the last year (68%). Only 8 (29%) were able to report screening details such as number screened by FIT and 9 were able to report on patients with an abnormal FIT or colonoscopy completed after FIT (32%). Health plans had challenges properly identifying where enrollees received care and had missing data for race and ethnicity (range 22 to 34% unknown race, <1% to 24% unknown ethnicity).

DISCUSSION

Most participating rural primary care clinics and Medicaid health plans experienced challenges identifying the population due for a CRC screening outreach program. Better EHR functionality and data reporting capabilities could help rural clinics apply population-based strategies and ultimately attenuate disparities in cancer screening and follow-up.

Practice Transformation to Improve Cancer Screening Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center

In 2011, Texas received federal approval of the 1115 Healthcare Transformation waiver, which went to support the Texas Delivery System Reform Incentive Payment Program (DSRIP) incentivizing the transformation of service delivery practices which included expanded coverage of preventive cancer screenings. There is limited evidence that quality improvement initiatives stemming from DSRIP improve cancer screening outcomes for the Medicaid, low-income, and uninsured (MLIU) patient population. The present the results of a quality initiative to improve breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening rates for MLIU patients receiving primary care at an academic medical center. The initiative included engaging multidisciplinary primary care teams, health information technology (IT), and quality departments to standardize workflows. We found significantly improved rates of cervical and colorectal cancer screening among patients eligible to receive one or more screenings. Aligning primary care, IT, and quality processes resulted in significant improvement in cancer screening.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality.

DISCUSSION

Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Cost-Effectiveness of Outreach Strategies for Stool-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Medicaid Population

Outreach, including patient navigation, has been shown to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in underserved populations. This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) versus outreach, with or without a mailed annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT), in a Medicaid population. A microsimulation model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, and clinical outcomes in a cohort of Medicaid beneficiaries aged 50-64 years, over a lifetime time horizon. The base case model explored scenarios of either 100% adherence or real-world reported adherence (51.3% for mt-sDNA, 21.1% for outreach with FIT and 12.3% for outreach without FIT) with or without real-world adherence for follow-up colonoscopy (66.7% for all). Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.0%. At 100% adherence to both screening tests and follow-up colonoscopy, mt-sDNA costed more and was less effective compared with outreach with or without FIT. When real-world adherence rates were considered for screening strategies (with 100% adherence for follow-up colonoscopy), mt-sDNA resulted in the greatest reduction in incidence and mortality from CRC (41.5% and 45.8%, respectively) compared with outreach with or without FIT; mt-sDNA also was cost-effective versus outreach with and without FIT ($32,150/QALY and $22,707/QALY, respectively). mt-sDNA remained cost-effective versus FIT, with or without outreach, under real-world adherence rates for follow-up colonoscopy. Outreach or navigation interventions, with associated real-world adherence rates to screening tests, should be considered when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies in underserved populations.

When History and Heterogeneity Matter: A Tutorial on the Impact of Markov Model Specifications in the Context of Colorectal Cancer Screening

BACKGROUND

Markov models are used in health research to simulate health care utilization and disease states over time. Health phenomena, however, are complex, and the memoryless assumption of Markov models may not appropriately represent reality. This tutorial provides guidance on the use of Markov models of different orders and stratification levels in health decision-analytic modeling. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is used as a case example to examine the impact of using different Markov modeling approaches on CRC outcomes.

METHODS

This study used insurance claims data from commercially insured individuals in Oregon to estimate transition probabilities between CRC screening states (no screen, colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test or fecal occult blood test). First-order, first-order stratified by sex and geography, and third-order Markov models were compared. Screening trajectories produced from the different Markov models were incorporated into a microsimulation model that simulated the natural history of CRC disease progression. Simulation outcomes (e.g., future screening choices, CRC incidence, deaths due to CRC) were compared across models.

RESULTS

Simulated CRC screening trajectories and resulting CRC outcomes varied depending on the Markov modeling approach used. For example, when using the first-order, first-order stratified, and third-order Markov models, 30%, 31%, and 44% of individuals used colonoscopy as their only screening modality, respectively. Screening trajectories based on the third-order Markov model predicted that a higher percentage of individuals were up-to-date with CRC screening as compared with the other Markov models.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited to insurance claims data spanning 5 y. It was not possible to validate which Markov model better predicts long-term screening behavior and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate the impact that different order and stratification assumptions can have in decision-analytic models.

HIGHLIGHTS

This tutorial uses colorectal cancer screening as a case example to provide guidance on the use of Markov models of different orders and stratification levels in health decision-analytic models.Colorectal cancer screening trajectories and projected health outcomes were sensitive to the use of alternate Markov model specifications.Although data limitations precluded the assessment of model accuracy beyond a 5-y period, within the 5-y period, the third-order Markov model was slightly more accurate in predicting the fifth colorectal cancer screening action than the first-order Markov model.Findings from this tutorial demonstrate the importance of examining the memoryless assumption of the first-order Markov model when simulating health care utilization over time.

Extending analytic methods for economic evaluation in implementation science

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.

Mailed fecal testing and patient navigation versus usual care to improve rates of colorectal cancer screening and follow-up colonoscopy in rural Medicaid enrollees: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Screening reduces incidence and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC), yet US screening rates are low, particularly among Medicaid enrollees in rural communities. We describe a two-phase project, SMARTER CRC, designed to achieve the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot^SM objectives by reducing the burden of CRC on the US population. Specifically, SMARTER CRC aims to test the implementation, effectiveness, and maintenance of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program to improve rates of CRC screening, follow-up colonoscopy, and referral to care in clinics serving rural Medicaid enrollees.

Methods

Phase I activities in SMARTER CRC include a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial of a mailed fecal test and patient navigation program involving three Medicaid health plans and 30 rural primary care practices in Oregon and Idaho; the implementation of the program is supported by training and practice facilitation. Participating clinic units were randomized 1:1 into the intervention or usual care. The intervention combines (1) mailed fecal testing outreach supported by clinics, health plans, and vendors and (2) patient navigation for colonoscopy following an abnormal fecal test result. We will evaluate the effectiveness, implementation, and maintenance of the intervention and track adaptations to the intervention and to implementation strategies, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Our primary effectiveness outcome is receipt of any CRC screening within 6 months of enrollee identification. Our primary implementation outcome is health plan- and clinic-level rates of program delivery, by component (mailed FIT and patient navigation). Trial results will inform phase II activities to scale up the program through partnerships with health plans, primary care clinics, and regional and national organizations that serve rural primary care clinics; scale-up will include webinars, train-the-trainer workshops, and collaborative learning activities.

Discussion

This study will test the implementation, effectiveness, and scale-up of a multi-component mailed fecal testing and patient navigation program to improve CRC screening rates in rural Medicaid enrollees. Our findings may inform approaches for adapting and scaling evidence-based approaches to promote CRC screening participation in underserved populations and settings.

Trial registration

Registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04890054) and at the NCI’s Clinical Trials Reporting Program (CTRP #: NCI-2021-01032) on May 11, 2021.

Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff

PURPOSE

Mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs can facilitate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We sought to identify modifiable, clinic-level factors that distinguish primary care clinics with higher vs lower FIT completion rates in response to a centralized mailed FIT program.

METHODS

We used baseline observational data from 15 clinics within a single urban federally qualified health center participating in a pragmatic trial to optimize a mailed FIT program. Clinic-level data included interviews with leadership using a guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and FIT completion rates. We used template analysis to identify explanatory factors and configurational comparative methods to identify specific combinations of clinic-level conditions that uniquely distinguished clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates.

RESULTS

We interviewed 39 clinic leaders and identified 58 potential explanatory factors representing clinic workflows and the CFIR inner setting domain. Clinic-level FIT completion rates ranged from 30% to 56%. The configurational model for clinics with higher rates (≥37%) featured any 1 of the following 3 factors related to support staff: (1) adding back- or front-office staff in past 12 months, (2) having staff help patients resolve barriers to CRC screening, and (3) having staff hand out FITs/educate patients. The model for clinics with lower rates involved the combined absence of these same 3 factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Three factors related to support staff differentiated clinics with higher and lower FIT completion rates. Adding nonphysician support staff and having those staff provide enabling services might help clinics optimize mailed FIT screening programs.

Source matters: a survey of cost variation for fecal immunochemical tests in primary care

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can improve health outcomes, but screening rates remain low across the US. Mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) are an effective way to increase CRC screening rates, but is still underutilized. In particular, cost of FIT has not been explored in relation to practice characteristics, FIT selection, and screening outreach approaches.

Methods

We administered a cross-sectional survey drawing from prior validated measures to 252 primary care practices to assess characteristics and context that could affect the implementation of direct mail fecal testing programs, including the cost, source of test, and types of FIT used. We analyzed the range of costs for the tests, and identified practice and test procurement factors. We examined the distributions of practice characteristics for FIT use and costs answers using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We used Pearson’s chi-squared test of association and interpreted a low p-value (e.g. < 0.05) as evidence of association between a given practice characteristic and knowing the cost of FIT or fecal occult blood test (FOBT).

Results

Among the 84 viable practice survey responses, more than 10 different types of FIT/FOBTs were in use; 76% of practices used one of the five most common FIT types. Only 40 practices (48%) provided information on FIT costs. Thirteen (32%) of these practices received the tests for free while 27 (68%) paid for their tests; median reported cost of a FIT was $3.04, with a range from $0.83 to $6.41 per test. Costs were not statistically significantly different by FIT type. However, practices who received FITs from manufacturer’s vendors were more likely to know the cost (p = 0.0002) and, if known, report a higher cost (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that most practices without lab or health system supplied FITs are spending more to procure tests. Cost of FIT may impact the willingness of practices to distribute FITs through population outreach strategies, such as mailed FIT. Differences in the ability to obtain FIT tests in a cost-effective manner could have consequences for implementation of outreach programs that address colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07576-4.

Scaling Up Public Health Interventions: Engaging Partners Across Multiple Levels

Advancing the science of intervention scale-up is essential to increasing the impact of effective interventions at the regional and national levels. In contrast with work in high-income countries (HICs), where scale-up research has been limited, researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have conducted numerous studies on the regional and national scale-up of interventions. In this article, we review the state of the science on intervention scale-up in both HICs and LMICs. We provide an introduction to the elements of scale-up followed by a description of the scale-up process, with an illustrative case study from our own research. We then present findings from a scoping review comparing scale-up studies in LMIC and HIC settings. We conclude with lessons learned and recommendations for improving scale-up research. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 43 is April 2022. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Centralized colorectal cancer screening outreach and patient navigation for vulnerable populations in North Carolina: study protocol for the SCORE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is effective in reducing CRC mortality, screening rates in vulnerable populations served by community health centers (CHCs) remain below national targets. CHCs in North Carolina are challenged to reach CRC screening targets as they tend to be under-resourced, have limited capacity to implement and sustain population health interventions, and typically operate independently from one another and from regional colonoscopy providers. The Scaling Colorectal Cancer Screening Through Outreach, Referral, and Engagement (SCORE) project is designed to address barriers to CRC screening in partnership with CHCs by implementing a multilevel intervention that includes centralized support infrastructure for mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach and patient navigation to follow-up colonoscopy. This paper describes protocols for the SCORE implementation trial.

METHODS

We will conduct a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial that will assess effectiveness at increasing CRC screening and follow-up rates while also assessing implementation outcomes. The planned trial sample will include 4000 CHC patients who are at average CRC risk and due for screening. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive either usual care or a multilevel intervention that includes mailed FIT outreach and patient navigation support to follow-up colonoscopy for those with abnormal FIT. The primary effectiveness outcome is completion of any CRC screening test at six months after randomization. We will also conduct a multilevel assessment of implementation outcomes and determinants.

DISCUSSION

This hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention that provides centralized infrastructure for mailed FIT screening and patient navigation for CHCs that operate independently of other healthcare facilities. Findings from this research will enhance understanding of the effectiveness of a centralized approach and factors that determine successful implementation in vulnerable patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on May 28, 2020, at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Estimating the impact of insurance expansion on colorectal cancer and related costs in North Carolina: A population-level simulation analysis

Although screening is effective in reducing incidence, mortality, and costs of treating colorectal cancer (CRC), it remains underutilized, in part due to limited insurance access. We used microsimulation to estimate the health and financial effects of insurance expansion and reduction scenarios in North Carolina (NC). We simulated the full lifetime of a simulated population of 3,298,265 residents age-eligible for CRC screening (ages 50-75) during a 5-year period starting January 1, 2018, including polyp incidence and progression and CRC screening, diagnosis, treatment, and mortality. Insurance scenarios included: status quo, which in NC includes access to the Health Insurance Exchange (HIE) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); no ACA; NC Medicaid expansion, and Medicare-for-all. The insurance expansion scenarios would increase percent up-to-date with screening by 0.3 and 7.1 percentage points for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all, respectively, while insurance reduction would reduce percent up-to-date by 1.1 percentage points, compared to the status quo (51.7% up-to-date), at the end of the 5-year period. Throughout these individuals' lifetimes, this change in CRC screening/testing results in an estimated 498 CRC cases averted with Medicaid expansion and 6031 averted with Medicare-for-all, and an additional 1782 cases if health insurance gains associated with ACA are lost. Estimated cost savings - balancing increased CRC screening/testing costs against decreased cancer treatment costs - are approximately $30 M and $970 M for Medicaid expansion and Medicare-for-all scenarios, respectively, compared to status quo. Insurance expansion is likely to improve CRC screening both overall and in underserved populations while saving money, with the largest savings realized by Medicare.