Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35550244›Full record

ReviewPreventing chronic disease2022

Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics.

Sarah D Hohl, Stephanie Melillo, Thuy T Vu, Cam Escoffery, Amy DeGroff, Dara Schlueter, Leslie W Ross, Annette E Maxwell, Krishna P Sharma, Jennifer Boehm and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Preventing chronic disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Process Mapping to Compare and Improve Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results in Two US Healthcare Systems within the PROSPR Consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

12 authors.

Sarah D HohlHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Stephanie MelilloDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Thuy T VuHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Cam EscofferyRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Amy DeGroffDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Dara SchlueterDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Leslie W RossDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Annette E MaxwellFielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Krishna P SharmaDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jennifer BoehmDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Djenaba JosephDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Peggy A HannonHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Funding

Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research CenterU48DP006377 · DP · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI KEGLER, MICHELLE C · 2018 to 2023
$13.5M
Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research CenterU48DP006398 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HANNON, MARGARET A · 2018 to 2023
$11.6M
Biobehavioral Cancer Prevention and Control Training Program (BCPT)T32CA092408 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Margaret A Hannon · 2016 to 2026
$2.3M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006377NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006398NCI NIH HHS T32 CA092408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.HumansPrimary Health CareSafety-net ProvidersUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35550244
PMCPMC9109642

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.