Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39054557›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2024

Using the consolidated framework for implementation research to identify church leaders' perspectives on contextual determinants of community-based colorectal cancer screening for Black Kentuckians.

Aaron J Kruse-Diehr, Derek Cegelka, Carlee Combs, Rose Wood, Elizabeth Holtsclaw, Jerod L Stapleton, Lovoria B Williams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Aaron J Kruse-DiehrUniversity of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA. kruse-diehr@uky.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2952-0248
Derek CegelkaHawai'i Pacific University College of Nursing, Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA.
Carlee CombsUniversity of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA.
Rose WoodUniversity of Kentucky College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA.
Elizabeth HoltsclawAmerican Cancer Society, Lexington, KY, USA.
Jerod L StapletonUniversity of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center, Lexington, KY, USA.
Lovoria B WilliamsUniversity of Kentucky College of Nursing, Lexington, KY, USA.

Funding

University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center Support Grant ECIA SupplementP30CA177558 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI Jennifer F Rogers · 2013 to 2026
$38.3M
Kentucky Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001998 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI HARTMANN, KATHERINE E, KERN, PHILIP A · 2016 to 2025
$34.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1TR001998NCI NIH HHS P30CA177558
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlack Kentuckians experience more deleterious colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes than their White counterparts, a disparity that could be reduced by increased screening in Black communities. Previous research has shown that Black Kentuckians may not be equitably informed of different CRC screening options by health care providers, making community-based screening a potentially effective option among this disparate population. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify church leaders' perspectives of contextual factors that might influence community-based screening and explore the feasibility of using church-based screening outreach.

methodsSix participants were selected, based on leadership roles and interest in CRC screening, from five established Louisville-area church partners that had previously participated in community health initiatives. Data were collected, both virtually and in-person, in Summer 2021 using semi-structured interview guides developed with guidance from the CFIR Guide that focused on domains most relevant to community-based interventions. Data were transcribed verbatim, coded by two independent researchers, and member checked for accuracy.

resultsData were aligned primarily with six CFIR constructs: key stakeholders, champions, opinion leaders, tension for change, compatibility, and culture. Participants noted a strong tension for change in their community due to perceptions of inadequacy with clinical approaches to CRC screening. Additionally, they stressed the importance of identifying individuals both within the church who could champion CRC screening and help implement program activities, as well as those outside the church who could collaborate with other local organizations to increase participant reach. Finally, participants agreed that faith-based CRC screening aligned with church culture and would also likely be compatible with overall community values.

conclusionsOverall, our church partners strongly endorsed the need for, and importance of, community-based CRC screening. Given a history of successful implementation of health promotion programs within our partner churches, it is highly likely that a CRC screening intervention would also be effective. Findings from this study will be used to identify implementation strategies that might positively impact a future faith-based CRC screening intervention, as well as CFIR constructs that are most positively associated with CRC screening completion.

Indexed as

African AmericansChurch-based health promotionColorectal cancerConsolidated framework for implementation researchScreeningStool-based screening

Identifiers

PMID39054557
PMCPMC11271043

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.