PURPOSE: To explore system/staff- and patient-level opportunities to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within an 11-clinic Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in rural Appalachia with CRC screening rates around 22%-30%. METHODS: Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, staff (n = 26) and patients (n = 60, age 50-75, 67% female, 83% <college, 47% Medicare, 23% Medicaid) were interviewed about CRC-related screening practices. Staff and patient interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Health Belief Model, respectively, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Among staff, inner setting factors that could promote CRC screening included high workplace satisfaction, experiences tracking other cancer screenings, and a highly active Performance Improvement Committee. Inner setting hindering factors included electronic medical record inefficiencies and requiring patients to physically return fecal tests to the clinic. Outer setting CRC screening promoting factors included increased Medicaid access, support from outside organizations, and reporting requirements to external regulators, while hindering factors included poor social determinants of health, inadequate colonoscopy access, and lack of patient compliance. Among patients, perceived screening benefits were rated relatively higher than barriers. Top barriers included cost, no symptoms, fear, and transportation. Patients reported high likelihood of getting a stool-based test and colonoscopy if recommended, yet self-efficacy to prevent CRC was considerably lower. CONCLUSIONS: Contextualized perceptions of barriers and practical opportunities to improve CRC screening rates were identified among staff and patients. To optimize multilevel CRC screening interventions in rural Appalachia clinics, future quality improvement, research, and policy efforts are needed to address identified challenges.
PURPOSE: To explore system/staff- and patient-level opportunities to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening within an 11-clinic Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) in rural Appalachia with CRC screening rates around 22%-30%. METHODS: Using a convergent parallel mixed-methods design, staff (n = 26) and patients (n = 60, age 50-75, 67% female, 83% <college, 47% Medicare, 23% Medicaid) were interviewed about CRC-related screening practices. Staff and patient interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Health Belief Model, respectively, and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. RESULTS: Among staff, inner setting factors that could promote CRC screening included high workplace satisfaction, experiences tracking other cancer screenings, and a highly active Performance Improvement Committee. Inner setting hindering factors included electronic medical record inefficiencies and requiring patients to physically return fecal tests to the clinic. Outer setting CRC screening promoting factors included increased Medicaid access, support from outside organizations, and reporting requirements to external regulators, while hindering factors included poor social determinants of health, inadequate colonoscopy access, and lack of patient compliance. Among patients, perceived screening benefits were rated relatively higher than barriers. Top barriers included cost, no symptoms, fear, and transportation. Patients reported high likelihood of getting a stool-based test and colonoscopy if recommended, yet self-efficacy to prevent CRC was considerably lower. CONCLUSIONS: Contextualized perceptions of barriers and practical opportunities to improve CRC screening rates were identified among staff and patients. To optimize multilevel CRC screening interventions in rural Appalachia clinics, future quality improvement, research, and policy efforts are needed to address identified challenges.
Authors: Amanda F Petrik; Beverly B Green; William M Vollmer; Thuy Le; Barbara Bachman; Erin Keast; Jennifer Rivelli; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Audrey Smith Bachman; Elisia L Cohen; Tom Collins; Jennifer Hatcher; Richard Crosby; Robin C Vanderpool Journal: Health Commun Date: 2017-08-18
Authors: Laura J Damschroder; David C Aron; Rosalind E Keith; Susan R Kirsh; Jeffery A Alexander; Julie C Lowery Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-08-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Reda J Wilson; A Blythe Ryerson; Simple D Singh; Jessica B King Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Melinda M Davis; Michele Freeman; Jackilen Shannon; Gloria D Coronado; Kurt C Stange; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Stephanie B Wheeler; David I Buckley Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jamie M Zoellner; Kathleen J Porter; Donna-Jean P Brock; Emma Mc Kim Mitchell; Howard Chapman; Deborah Clarkston; Wendy Cohn; Lindsay Hauser; Dianne W Morris; Sarah Y Ramey; Brenna Robinson; Scott Schriefer; Noelle Voges; Kara P Wiseman Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2021-06-22