Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods

Abstract

Background

Evidence-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.

Objectives

As 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.

Design

Eight 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 Measures

We 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 Results

FIT 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.

Conclusions

Full 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 Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742065 Registered 05 December 2012–Prospectively registered

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1

Data Availability

Please contact the lead author for information regarding data.

Abbreviations

CCMs:

configurational comparative methods

CNA:

coincidence analysis

QCA:

qualitative comparative analysis

FIT:

fecal immunochemical test

CRC:

colorectal cancer

FQHC:

federally qualified health center

STOP CRC:

Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations

EHR:

electronic health record

IT:

information technology

PDSA:

plan-do-study-act improvement process

References

  1. 1.

    Stegeman I, de Wijkerslooth TR, Mallant-Hent RC, et al. Implementation of population screening for colorectal cancer by repeated Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT): third round. BMC Gastroenterol. 2012;12:73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Brenner AT, Getrich CM, Pignone M, et al. Comparing the effect of a decision aid plus patient navigation with usual care on colorectal cancer screening completion in vulnerable populations: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials [Electronic Resource]. 2014;15:275.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Mehta SJ, Jensen CD, Quinn VP, et al. Race/ethnicity and adoption of a population health management approach to colorectal cancer screening in a community-based healthcare system. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(11):1323-1330.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Davis MFM, Shannon J, Coronado G, Stange K, Guise JM, Wheeler S, Buckley DI. A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States – how, what and when?. BMC Cancer In Press. 2018.

  5. 5.

    Brenner AT, Rhode J, Yang JY, et al. Comparative effectiveness of mailed reminders with and without fecal immunochemical tests for Medicaid beneficiaries at a large county health department: A randomized controlled trial. Cancer. 2018;124(16):3346-3354.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Atkin WS, Benson VS, Green J, et al. Improving colorectal cancer screening outcomes: proceedings of the second meeting of the International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network, a global quality initiative. J Med Screen. 2010;17(3):152-157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Benson VS, Atkin WS, Green J, et al. Toward standardizing and reporting colorectal cancer screening indicators on an international level: The International Colorectal Cancer Screening Network. Int J Cancer. 2012;130(12):2961-2973.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Liss D, French D, Buchanan D, et al. Outreach for annual colorectal cancer screening: A budget impact analysis for community health centers. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(2):54-61.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Schlichting JA, Mengeling MA, Makki NM, et al. Increasing colorectal cancer screening in an overdue population: participation and cost impacts of adding telephone calls to a FIT mailing program. J Community Health. 2014;39(2):239-247.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Green BB, Anderson ML, Cook AJ, et al. A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 years: A randomized trial. Cancer. 2017.

  11. 11.

    Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Spofford M, Talbot J, Do HH, Taylor VM. Clinical perspectives on colorectal cancer screening at Latino-serving federally qualified health centers. Health Educ Behav. 2015;42(1):26-31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Coronado GD, Schneider JL, Petrik A, Rivelli J, Taplin S, Green BB. Implementation successes and challenges in participating in a pragmatic study to improve colon cancer screening: perspectives of health center leaders. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(3):557-566.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Coury J, Schneider JL, Rivelli JS, et al. Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):411.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Weiner BJ, Rohweder CL, Scott JE, et al. Using practice facilitation to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening in community health centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: feasibility, facilitators, and barriers. Prev Chronic Dis. 2017;14:E66.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    DeGroff A, Holden D, Goode Green S, Boehm J, Seeff LC, Tangka F. Start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(2):A38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Daly JM, Levy BT, Moss CA, Bay CP. System Strategies for Colorectal Cancer Screening at Federally Qualified Health Centers. Am J Public Health. 2014.

  17. 17.

    Liles EG, Schneider JL, Feldstein AC, et al. Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives. Implement Sci. 2015;10:41.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, et al. Evaluation of interventions intended to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in the United States: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1645-1658.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Issaka RB, Avila P, Whitaker E, Bent S, Somsouk M. Population health interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical tests: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2019;118:113-121.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Tangka FKL, Subramanian S, DeGroff AS, Wong FL, Richardson LC. Identifying optimal approaches to implement colorectal cancer screening through participation in a learning laboratory. Cancer. 2018;124(21):4118-4120.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kemper KE, Glaze BL, Eastman CL, et al. Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State. Cancer. 2018;124(21):4121-4129.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Liang S, Kegler MC, Cotter M, et al. Integrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety net health systems: a multiple case study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:109.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Cole AM, Esplin A, Baldwin LM. Adaptation of an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening program using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E213.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Walker TJ, Risendal B, Kegler MC, et al. Assessing levels and correlates of implementation of evidence-based approaches for colorectal cancer screening: a cross-sectional study with federally qualified health centers. Health Educ Behav. 2018;45(6):1008-1015.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Sperber N, Robinson CH, Fickel JJ, Oddone EZ. Implementation evaluation of the Telephone Lifestyle Coaching (TLC) program: organizational factors associated with successful implementation. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(2):233-241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lorthios-Guilledroit A, Richard L, Filiatrault J. Factors associated with the implementation of community-based peer-led health promotion programs: a scoping review. Eval Program Plan. 2018;68:19-33.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Hill LG, Cooper BR, Parker LA. Qualitative comparative analysis: a mixed-method tool for complex implementation questions. J Prim Prev. 2019;40(1):69-87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Coronado GD, Burdick T, Petrik A, Kapka T, Retecki S, Green B. Using an automated data-driven, EHR-embedded program for mailing FIT kits: lessons from the STOP CRC Pilot Study. J Gen Pract (Los Angel). 2014;2.

  29. 29.

    Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Vollmer WM, et al. Mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach program in federally qualified health centers: the STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;(submitted).

  30. 30.

    Coronado GD, Petrik AF, Vollmer WM, et al. Effectiveness of a mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach program in community health clinics: The STOP CRC cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2018.

  31. 31.

    OCHIN. We are OCHIN. https://ochin.org/. Published 2018. Accessed Jul 2019.

  32. 32.

    Yakovchenko V, Miech EJ, Chinman MJ, et al. Strategy configurations directly linked to higher hepatitis C virus treatment starts: an applied use of configurational comparative methods. Med Care. 2020.

  33. 33.

    Baumgartner M. Parsimony and Causality. Qual Quant. 2015;49(2):839-856.

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Cragun D, Pal T, Vadaparampil ST, Baldwin J, Hampel H, DeBate RD. Qualitative comparative analysis: a hybrid method for identifying factors associated with program effectiveness. J Mixed Methods Res. 2016;10(3):251-272.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Thiem A. Conducting configurational comparative research with qualitative comparative analysis:a hands-on tutorial for applied evaluation scholars and practitioners. Am J Eval. 2017;38(3):420-433.

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Rohlfing I, Zuber CI. Check your truth conditions! Clarifying the relationship between theories of causation and social science methods for causal inference. Sociol Methods Res. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124119826156.

  37. 37.

    Rihoux B, Ragin CC. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. SAGE Publications 2008.

  38. 38.

    Palinkas LA, Mendon SJ, Hamilton AB. Innovations in mixed methods evaluations. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40:423-442.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Harris K, Kneale D, Lasserson TJ, McDonald VM, Grigg J, Thomas J. School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1:Cd011651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Cragun D. Configurational Comparative Methods. In: Nilsen P, Birken S, eds. Handbook on Implementation Science. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ragin CC. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press; 2014.

  42. 42.

    Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implement Sci 2016;11:72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Coronado GD, Schneider JL, Sanchez JJ, Petrik AF, Green B. Reasons for non-response to a direct-mailed FIT kit program: Lessons learned from a pragmatic colorectal-cancer screening study in a federally sponsored health center. Transl Behav Med 2015;5(1):60-67.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Vol Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Bernard HR, Ryan GW. Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Los Angeles [Calif.]: SAGE; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Vol Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Ambuehl M, Baumgartner M. cna: causal modeling with coincidence analysis. R package version 2.1.1; 2018.

  48. 48.

    Hickman SE, Miech EJ, Stump TE, Fowler NR, Unroe KT. Identifying the implementation conditions associated with positive outcomes in a successful nursing facility demonstration project. The Gerontologist. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa041

  49. 49.

    Baumgartner M, Thiem A. Model ambiguities in configurational comparative research. Sociol Methods Res. 2017;46(4):954-987.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Greckhamer T, Furnari S, Fiss PC, Aguilera RV. Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strateg Organ. 2018;16(4):482-495.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD, et al. Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(5):1383-1391.e1385.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Coury JK, Schneider JL, Green BB, et al. Two Medicaid health plans’ models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates. Transl Behav Med. 2018.

  53. 53.

    Baker DW, Brown T, Buchanan DR, et al. Comparative effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence to annual colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1235-1241.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Green BB, Wang CY, Anderson ML, et al. An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(5 Pt 1):301-311.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Riehman KS, Stephens RL, Henry-Tanner J, Brooks D. Evaluation of colorectal cancer screening in federally qualified health centers. Am J Prev Med. 2018;54(2):190-196.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institutes of Health Common Fund and the National Cancer Institute under award numbers UH2AT007782 and 4UH3CA188640-02, awarded to the second and seventh authors (Green and Coronado).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BG and GC are Co-PIs of the project. BG wrote the initial discussion section. AP coordinated the study, drafted the initial manuscript outline, drafted significant components of the methods, and finalized the final manuscript. JS is the qualitative interviewer who offered interpretations of analysis and wrote about the qualitative data. EM conducted the analysis and wrote segments of the methods and results sections. JC was a clinic trainer, drafted the introduction, and provided insight into findings. SR was the clinical liaison and drafted components of the discussion. GC provided oversight and reviewed the entire manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda F. Petrik MS.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Competing Interests

Dr. Coronado: From November 2014 to August 2015, Dr. Coronado served as a co-investigator on an industry-funded study to evaluate patient adherence to an experimental blood test for colorectal cancer. The study was funded by EpiGenomics. From September 2017 to June 2018, Dr. Coronado served as the Principal Investigator on an industry-funded study to compare the clinical performance of an experimental FIT to an FDA-approved FIT. This study is funded by Quidel Corporation. Dr. Coronado has served as a scientific advisor for Exact Sciences and Guardant Health. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kaiser Permanente Northwest on December 6, 2013. The project received a waiver of informed consent; however, all interview participants provided verbal assent. All staff have been trained in ethical conduct of human subject research.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The study sponsor had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; or the decision to submit the report for publication.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributions to the Literature

• This study identifies what clinical setting factors lead to different levels of implementation of an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening program. High levels of implementation were directly linked to having centralized staff devoted to implementation and the ability to carry out the program as designed.

• Configurational comparative methods are well-suited to assess combinations of conditions linked to successful implementation. Understanding how combinations of conditions lead to successful implementation can inform efforts to optimize the delivery of evidence-based interventions in practice.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 411 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petrik, A.F., Green, B., Schneider, J. et al. Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods. J GEN INTERN MED 35, 815–822 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06186-2

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • colorectal cancer
  • screening
  • implementation
  • fecal immunochemical tests
  • FIT tests
  • configurational comparative methods
  • Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research