Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32933525›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2020

Health plan adaptations to a mailed outreach program for colorectal cancer screening among Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: the BeneFIT study.

Gloria D Coronado, Jennifer L Schneider, Beverly B Green, Jennifer K Coury, Malaika R Schwartz, Yogini Kulkarni-Sharma, Laura Mae Baldwin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. 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 5 institutions in 1 country.

Gloria D CoronadoKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate Ave., Portland, OR, 97227, USA. Gloria.D.Coronado@kpchr.org.
Jennifer L SchneiderKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate Ave., Portland, OR, 97227, USA.
Beverly B GreenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jennifer K CouryOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Malaika R SchwartzUniversity of Washington Department of Family Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Yogini Kulkarni-SharmaMolina Healthcare of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Laura Mae BaldwinUniversity of Washington Department of Family Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USUniversity of Washington · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USMolina Healthcare (United States)Oregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundPromoting uptake of evidence-based innovations in healthcare systems requires attention to how innovations are adapted to enhance their fit with a given setting. Little is known about real-world variation in how programs are delivered over time and across multiple populations and contexts, and what motivates adaptations.

methodsAs part of the BeneFIT study of mailed fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) to increase colorectal cancer screening, we interviewed 9 leaders from two participating Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans to examine adaptations to their health plan-initiated mailed FIT outreach programs in the second year of implementation. We applied an adaptation and modification model developed by Stirman and colleagues to document content and context modifications made to the two programs.

resultsBoth health plans made substantial changes to their programs in the second year; adaptations differed substantially across health plans. In Health Plan Oregon, adaptations generally targeted health centers and member populations, most content adaptations involved tailoring program components, and the program was expanded to four additional health centers. In contrast, Health Plan Washington's second-year content adaptations were primarily at the level of members, and generally involved adding program components. Moreover, Health Plan Washington undertook large-scale context adaptations to the setting where the program was led (local vs. national), the personnel who administered the program (vendor and staffing), and the population selected for outreach (limiting outreach to dual-eligible members).

conclusionsBoth programs implemented a variety of adaptations that reflected the values and incentives of the broader health plan contexts. Financial incentives for screening allowed Health Plan Oregon to expand but led Health Plan Washington to offer more targeted outreach to a subset of eligible enrollees. The breadth of changes made by each health system reflects the necessity of evaluating programs in context and adjusting to specific challenges as they are identified. Further research is needed to understand the effects of these types of adaptations on program efficiency and enrollee and health system outcomes.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsMedicaidAgedEarly Detection of CancerHumansMedicareOccult BloodUnited StatesAdaptationsColorectal cancer screeningDirect-mailFecal immunochemical test (FIT)ImplementationMedicaid

Identifiers

PMID32933525
PMCPMC7493880
OpenAlexW3085107416

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.