ArticlePreventing chronic disease2022
Evaluating Uptake of Evidence-Based Interventions in 355 Clinics Partnering With the Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2015-2018.
Article 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 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effectiveness ofCancers · 2025Article
- Improving colorectal cancer screening through Cologuard education: a quality improvement initiative in an urban primary care clinic.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Comparing the effectiveness of implementation strategies to improve liver and colon cancer screening for Veterans: protocol for a large cluster-randomized implementation study.Implementation science : IS · 2025Article
- Characterizing screening champions in the center for disease control and prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Promising approaches to support sustained colorectal cancer screening promotion strategies in primary care clinics.Preventive oncology & epidemiology · 2025Article
- Navigating the evolving landscape of colorectal cancer screening with a practical framework: a comprehensive analysis of existing and emerging technologies for informed decision-making.Oncology reviews · 2025Review
- Closing Editorial: Colorectal Cancer-A Molecular Genetics Perspective.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Review
- The Contribution of Implementation Evaluation to the Field of Public Health.Preventing chronic disease · 2023Article
- Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer prevention interventions in MA community health centers: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer prevention interventions in MA community health centers: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study.Research square · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PURPOSE AND
objectivesColorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers). EVALUATION
methodsClinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs.
resultsIn our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Clinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.