Dataset Information

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems?

Methods

During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts.

Results

Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test.

Conclusions

This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Ferrari RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10512568 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

Ferrari Renée M RM Leeman Jennifer J Brenner Alison T AT Correa Sara Y SY Malo Teri L TL Moore Alexis A AA O'Leary Meghan C MC Randolph Connor M CM Ratner Shana S Frerichs Leah L Farr Deeonna D Crockett Seth D SD Wheeler Stephanie B SB Lich Kristen Hassmiller KH Beasley Evan E Hogsed Michelle M Bland Ashley A Richardson Claudia C Newcomer Mike M Reuland Daniel S DS

Implementation science communications 20230920 1

<h4>Background</h4>Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in bot ...[more]

PMID: 37730659

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based programs such as mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can only affect health outcomes if they can be successfully implemented. However, attempts to implement programs are often limited by organizational-level factors.ObjectivesAs part of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) pragmatic trial, we evaluated how organizational factors impacted the extent to which health centers implemented a mailed FIT outreach program.DesignEight health centers participated in STOP CRC. The intervention consisted of customized electronic health record tools and clinical staff training to facilitate mailing of an introduction letter, FIT kit, and reminder letter. Health centers had flexibility in how they delivered the program.Main measuresWe categorized the health centers' level of implementation based on the proportion of eligible patients who were mailed a FIT kit, and applied configurational comparative methods to identify combinations of relevant organizational-level and program-level factors that distinguished among high, medium, and low implementing health centers. The factors were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research model.Key resultsFIT tests were mailed to 21.0-81.7% of eligible participants at each health center. We identified a two-factor solution that distinguished among levels of implementation with 100% consistency and 100% coverage. The factors were having a centralized implementation team (inner setting) and mailing the introduction letter in advance of the FIT kit (intervention characteristics). Health centers with high levels of implementation had the joint presence of both factors. In health centers with medium levels of implementation, only one factor was present. Health centers with low levels of implementation had neither factor present.ConclusionsFull implementation of the STOP CRC intervention relied on a centralized implementation team with dedicated staffing time, and the advance mailing of an introduction letter.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742065 Registered 05 December 2012-Prospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation strategies can help support the adoption and implementation of health interventions that are appropriate for a local context and acceptable to decision makers and community members. Implementation strategies should be designed to handle the complexity of the multi-level, dynamic contexts in which interventions are implemented. Systems science theories and methods explicitly attend to complexity and can be valuable for specifying implementation strategies. Group Model Building (GMB) combines research partner engagement strategies with systems science to support researchers' and partners' learning about complex problems and to identify solutions through consensus. This paper specifies how GMB can operationalize implementation strategies - methods for supporting evidence implementation in real-world practice - and describes how GMB can aid in selecting and tailoring both health interventions and implementation strategies. A case study in child maltreatment prevention planning is provided to illustrate how GMB was used to specify the "actions" - strategy activities - for three implementation strategies (conduct local consensus discussions; build a coalition; model and simulate change) during the earliest implementation phases, with the goal of supporting intervention selection decisions. Examples are provided of generalizable research products that can be produced concurrently through GMB, in addition to contextually-driven implementation support.MethodsParticipants (n = 8) were engaged over four sessions using tailored GMB activities. Participants generated a qualitative system dynamics model that described their theory of change for how to prevent child maltreatment in their communities. This theory of change reflected a dynamic understanding of the interconnected determinants of child maltreatment.ResultsGMB was acceptable to participants and resulted in products that could be used for implementation planning (e.g., to model and simulate change) and future research. GMB fostered trust and idea sharing between participants.ConclusionGMB can facilitate learning about which outcomes are (or are not) impacted by interventions, which resources and approaches are required for quality implementation (e.g., implementation strategies), and tradeoffs in outcomes and resources between interventions. GMB also provides a structured, effective process to generate a shared implementation vision amongst participants. Lessons learned include methods for developing trust with and between participants, and the need for researchers to tailor GMB actions for participant and project needs.

Project description:Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Project description:BackgroundEffective implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) remains a significant challenge. Numerous existing models and frameworks identify key factors and processes to facilitate implementation. However, there is a need to better understand how individual models and frameworks are applied in research projects, how they can support the implementation process, and how they might advance implementation science. This systematic review examines and describes the research application of a widely used implementation framework, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed to identify and evaluate the use of the EPIS framework in implementation efforts. Citation searches in PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Social Sciences Index, and Google Scholar databases were undertaken. Data extraction included the objective, language, country, setting, sector, EBP, study design, methodology, level(s) of data collection, unit(s) of analysis, use of EPIS (i.e., purpose), implementation factors and processes, EPIS stages, implementation strategy, implementation outcomes, and overall depth of EPIS use (rated on a 1-5 scale).ResultsIn total, 762 full-text articles were screened by four reviewers, resulting in inclusion of 67 articles, representing 49 unique research projects. All included projects were conducted in public sector settings. The majority of projects (73%) investigated the implementation of a specific EBP. The majority of projects (90%) examined inner context factors, 57% examined outer context factors, 37% examined innovation factors, and 31% bridging factors (i.e., factors that cross or link the outer system and inner organizational context). On average, projects measured EPIS factors across two of the EPIS phases (M = 2.02), with the most frequent phase being Implementation (73%). On average, the overall depth of EPIS inclusion was moderate (2.8 out of 5).ConclusionThis systematic review enumerated multiple settings and ways the EPIS framework has been applied in implementation research projects, and summarized promising characteristics and strengths of the framework, illustrated with examples. Recommendations for future use include more precise operationalization of factors, increased depth and breadth of application, development of aligned measures, and broadening of user networks. Additional resources supporting the operationalization of EPIS are available.

Dataset Information

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets