Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30794725›Full record

ArticleTranslational behavioral medicine2020

Understanding the processes that Federally Qualified Health Centers use to select and implement colorectal cancer screening interventions: a qualitative study.

Jennifer Leeman, Natoshia Askelson, Linda K Ko, Catherine L Rohweder, Jade Avelis, Alicia Best, Daniela Friedman, Karen Glanz, Laura Seegmiller, Lindsay Stradtman and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational behavioral medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Multilevel Approach to Understand the Context and Potential Solutions for Low Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Screening Rates in Rural Appalachia Clinics.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer LeemanSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Natoshia AskelsonDepartment of Community & Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Linda K KoFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Catherine L RohwederCenter for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carrboro, NC, USA.
Jade AvelisCenter for Health Behavior Research, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Alicia BestDepartment of Community and Family Health, College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Daniela FriedmanDepartment of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Karen GlanzDepartment of Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Laura SeegmillerDepartment of Community & Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Lindsay StradtmanHealth, Behavior, & Society, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Robin C VanderpoolHealth, Behavior, & Society, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
University of Iowa · USUniversity of Kentucky · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of South Carolina · USUniversity of South Florida · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research CenterU48DP005013 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HANNON, MARGARET A · 2014 to 2018
$13.3M
Center for Health Promotion and Disease PreventionU48DP005017 · DP · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI AMMERMAN, ALICE S, WHEELER, STEPHANIE BROOKE · 2014 to 2018
$10.9M
University of Pennsylvania Prevention Research CenterU48DP005053 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI GLANZ, KAREN, VOLPP, KEVIN G · 2014 to 2018
$8.7M
Prevention Research Center for Healthy NeighborhoodsU48DP005030 · DP · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI BORAWSKI, ELAINE A. · 2014 to 2018
$6.8M
Rural Cancer Prevention Center __ Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and PolypsU48DP005014 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI CROSBY, RICHARD A · 2014 to 2018
$6.3M
Faith, Activity, and Nutrition: Dissemination in Underserved CommunitiesU48DP005000 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT COLUMBIA · PI WILCOX, SARA · 2014 to 2019
$5.9M
University of Iowa Prevention Research Center for Rural HealthU48DP005021 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI BAQUERO, BARBARA I, PARKER, EDITH A · 2014 to 2018
$5.6M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005000NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005013NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005014NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005017NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005021NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005030NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005053
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective at reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. Evidence-based interventions can increase screening rates, particularly when they target multiple levels (e.g., patients, providers, health care systems). However, effective interventions remain underutilized. Thus, there is a pressing need to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions. We report on formative research aimed at understanding how Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) staff select and implement CRC screening interventions, which will inform development of capacity-building strategies. We report the qualitative findings from a study that used a mixed methods design, starting with a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 staff from 14 FQHCs in 8 states. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview questions and data analysis. Related to the CFIR process domain, few respondents described conducting formal assessments of factors contributing to low screening rates prior to planning their interventions. Many described engaging champions, implementation leaders, and external change agents. Few described a systematic approach to executing implementation plans beyond conducting plan-do-study-act cycles. Reflection and evaluation consisted primarily of reviewing Uniform Data System performance measures. Findings also include themes related to factors influencing these implementation processes. Although FQHCs are implementing CRC screening interventions, they are not actively targeting the multilevel factors influencing their CRC screening rates. Our findings on gaps in FQHCs' implementation processes will inform development of strategies to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerDelivery of Health CareHumansMass ScreeningQualitative ResearchColorectal cancer screeningConsolidated Framework for Implementation ResearchEvidence-based decision-makingEvidence-based interventions

Identifiers

PMID30794725
PMCPMC7237542
OpenAlexW2917203395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.