Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36952143›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2024

Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.

Sarah D Hohl, Annette E Maxwell, Krishna P Sharma, Juzhong Sun, Thuy T Vu, Amy DeGroff, Cam Escoffery, Dara Schlueter, Peggy A Hannon

Open access · hybridFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2024. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah D HohlHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. sarah.hohl@fammed.wisc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4624-1868
Annette E MaxwellFielding School of Public Health, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Krishna P SharmaTotally Joined for Achieving Collaborative Techniques, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Juzhong SunTotally Joined for Achieving Collaborative Techniques, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Thuy T VuHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Amy DeGroffDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Cam EscofferyRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dara SchlueterDivision of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Peggy A HannonHealth Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USCollaborative Group (United States) · USNational Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · USEmory University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Biobehavioral Cancer Prevention and Control Training Program (BCPT)T32CA092408 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Margaret A Hannon · 2016 to 2026
$2.3M
ACL HHS U48DP006377ACL HHS U48DP006398CDC HHS U48DP006377CDC HHS U48DP006398NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006377NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006398NCI NIH HHS T32 CA092408
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerPrimary Health CareAgedCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFecesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodPostal ServiceRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesColorectal cancer (CRC) screeningColorectal neoplasmsEvidence-based interventions (EBIs)Fecal immunochemical testingFecal occult blood testMailed fecal testing implementationMailed outreachSafety-net clinics

Identifiers

PMID36952143
PMCPMC10034905
OpenAlexW4360599704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read65
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.