Factors that support readiness to implement integrated evidence-based practice to increase cancer screening

Consensus-based framework for evaluating data modernization initiatives: the case of cancer registration and electronic reporting

As part of its data modernization initiative (DMI), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control is testing and implementing innovative solutions to improve cancer surveillance data quality and timeliness. We describe a consensus-based effort to create a framework to guide the evaluation of cancer surveillance modernization efforts by addressing specific context, processes, and costs related to cancer registration. We drew on prior theories, consulted with experts, and sought feedback from cancer registry staff. We developed the cancer surveillance systems, context, outcomes, and process evaluation (CS-SCOPE) framework to explain the ways in which cancer registry data quality, timeliness, and efficiency are impacted by external and internal contextual factors and interrelated process and content factors. The framework includes implementation measures to understand acceptability of process changes along with outcome measures to assess DMI initiation and ongoing sustainability. The framework's components and structures can be tailored for use in other DMI evaluations.

Advancing the science of integrating multiple interventions by blending and bundling

Cancer prevention and control research has produced a variety of effective interventions over the years, though most are single disease focused. To meet the Cancer Moonshot goal to reduce the cancer death rate by 50% by 2047, it may be necessary to overcome the limitations of siloed interventions that do not meet people's multiple needs and limitations in system capacity to deliver the increasing number of interventions in parallel. In this article, we propose integrating multiple evidence-based interventions as a potential solution. We define 2 types of integrated interventions, blended and bundled, and provide examples to illustrate each. We then offer a schematic and outline considerations for how to assemble blended or bundled interventions including looking at the intervention need or opportunity along the cancer continuum as well as co-occurring behaviors or motivations. We also discuss delivery workflow integration considerations including social-ecological level(s), context or setting, implementer, and intended beneficiary. Finally, in assembling integrated interventions, we encourage consideration of practice-based expertise and community and/or patient input. After assembly, we share thoughts related to implementation and evaluation of blended or bundled interventions. To conclude the article, we present multiple research opportunities in this space. With swift progress on these research directions, cancer prevention and control interventionists and implementation scientists can contribute to achieving the promise of the reignited Cancer Moonshot.

Integrated approaches to delivering cancer screenings to address disparities: lessons learned from the evaluation of CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program

Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Colorectal Cancer Control Program to increase colorectal cancer screening among groups with low screening uptake. This engagement has enabled the health systems participating in the program to enhance infrastructure, systems, and process to implement interventions for colorectal cancer screening. These improvements have enabled other health promotion innovations such as the delivery of integrated interventions and supporting activities (referred to as integrated approaches) for multiple cancers. Using implementation science frameworks, the program evaluation team has examined these integrated approaches to capture the experiences of the awardees, health systems, and clinics.

Methods and results

The findings from this comprehensive evaluation are presented in a series of 3 manuscripts. The first manuscript provides a conceptual framework for integrated approaches for cancer screening to support comprehensive evaluations and offers recommendations for future research. The second manuscript presents findings on key factors that support readiness for implementing integrated approaches based on qualitative interviews guided by implementation science constructs. The final manuscript reports on the challenges and benefits of integrated approaches to increase cancer screening in primary care facilities based on lessons learned from three real-world implementation case studies.

Conclusion

Integrated models for implementing cancer screening could offer cost-effective approaches to reduce healthcare disparities. Additional implementation science-based systematic evaluations are needed to ensure integrated approaches are optimized, and cost-efficient models are scaled up.