Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32085767›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders.

Laura-Mae Baldwin, Jennifer L Schneider, Malaika Schwartz, Jennifer S Rivelli, Beverly B Green, Amanda F Petrik, Gloria D Coronado

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Laura-Mae BaldwinDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354696, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. lmb@uw.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2236-1216
Jennifer L SchneiderKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Malaika SchwartzDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Box 354696, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Jennifer S RivelliKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Beverly B GreenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Amanda F PetrikKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Gloria D CoronadoKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USUniversity of Washington · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · US

Funding

CDC HHS U48DP005013NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer screening rates remain low, especially among certain racial and ethnic groups and the uninsured and Medicaid insured. Clinics and health care systems have adopted population-based mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs to increase screening, and now health insurance plans are beginning to implement mailed FIT programs. We report on challenges to and successes of mailed FIT programs during their first year of implementation in two health plans serving Medicaid and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees.

methodsThis qualitative descriptive study gathered data through in-depth interviews with staff and leaders at each health plan (n = 10). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, field notes from program planning meetings between the research team and the health plans, and internal research team debriefs informed interview guide development. Qualitative research staff used Atlas.ti to code the health plan interviews and develop summary themes through an iterative content analysis approach.

resultsWe identified first-year implementation challenges in five thematic areas: 1) program design, 2) vendor experience, 3) engagement/communication, 4) reaction/satisfaction of stakeholders, and 5) processing/returning of mailed kits. Commonly experienced challenges by both health plans related to the time-consuming nature of the programs to set up, and complexities and delays in working with vendors. We found implementation successes in the same five thematic areas as well as four additional areas of: 1) leadership support, 2) compatibility with the health plan, 3) broader impacts, and 4) collaboration with researchers. Commonly experienced successes included the ability to adapt the mailed FIT program to the individual health plan culture and needs, and the synchronicity between the programs and their organizational missions and goals.

conclusionsBoth health plans successfully adapted mailed FIT programs to their own culture and resources and used their strong quality management resources to maximize success in overcoming the time demands of setting up the program and working with their vendors. Mailed FIT programs administered by health plans, especially those serving Medicaid- and dual eligible Medicaid/Medicare-insured populations, may be an important resource to support closing gaps in colorectal cancer screening among traditionally underserved populations.

Indexed as

Occult BloodPostal ServiceAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMedicaidMedicareMiddle AgedProgram DevelopmentProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementUnited StatesColorectal cancer screeningFecal immunochemical testing (FIT)Health planImplementationMailed screening programsMedicaidMedicareQualitativeUnderserved

Identifiers

PMID32085767
PMCPMC7035739
OpenAlexW3011482021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.