Jennifer Coury1, Edward J Miech2, Patricia Styer3, Amanda F Petrik4, Kelly E Coates5, Beverly B Green6, Laura-Mae Baldwin7, Jean A Shapiro8, Gloria D Coronado4. 1. Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network, Oregon Health & Science University, 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park Rd., Mail Code L222, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. coury@ohsu.edu. 2. Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Business Administration, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR, USA. 4. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA. 5. Quality Improvement Program Administrator, CareOregon, Inc., Portland, OR, USA. 6. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chamblee, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems vary how they implement (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT), and participating health systems could adapt the program. This multi-method study explored which program adaptations might have resulted in higher screening rates. METHODS: First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we generated an overall model by fitting a weighted regression line to our data. Third, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine how combinations of conditions were linked to higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates. RESULTS: Seventeen health systems took part in at least 1 year of BeneFIT. The overall screening completion rate was 20% (4-28%) in year 1 and 25% (12-35%) in year 2 of the program. Health systems that used two or more adaptations had higher screening rates, and no single adaptation clearly led to higher screening rates. In year 1, small systems, with just one clinic, that used phone reminders (n = 2) met the implementation success threshold (≥ 19% screening rate) while systems with > 1 clinic were successful when offering a patient incentive (n = 4), scrubbing mailing lists (n = 4), or allowing mailed FIT returns with no other adaptations (n = 1). In year 2, larger systems with 2-4 clinics were successful with a phone reminder (n = 4) or a patient incentive (n = 3). Of the 10 systems that implemented BeneFIT in both years, seven improved their CRC screening rates in year 2. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can choose among many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan's mailed FIT program. Different combinations of adaptations led to success with health system size emerging as an important contextual factor.
BACKGROUND: Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) programs can improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, but health systems vary how they implement (i.e., adapt) these programs for their organizations. A health insurance plan implemented a mailed FIT program (named BeneFIT), and participating health systems could adapt the program. This multi-method study explored which program adaptations might have resulted in higher screening rates. METHODS: First, we conducted a descriptive analysis of CRC screening rates by key health system characteristics and program adaptations. Second, we generated an overall model by fitting a weighted regression line to our data. Third, we applied Configurational Comparative Methods (CCMs) to determine how combinations of conditions were linked to higher screening rates. The main outcome measure was CRC screening rates. RESULTS: Seventeen health systems took part in at least 1 year of BeneFIT. The overall screening completion rate was 20% (4-28%) in year 1 and 25% (12-35%) in year 2 of the program. Health systems that used two or more adaptations had higher screening rates, and no single adaptation clearly led to higher screening rates. In year 1, small systems, with just one clinic, that used phone reminders (n = 2) met the implementation success threshold (≥ 19% screening rate) while systems with > 1 clinic were successful when offering a patient incentive (n = 4), scrubbing mailing lists (n = 4), or allowing mailed FIT returns with no other adaptations (n = 1). In year 2, larger systems with 2-4 clinics were successful with a phone reminder (n = 4) or a patient incentive (n = 3). Of the 10 systems that implemented BeneFIT in both years, seven improved their CRC screening rates in year 2. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems can choose among many adaptations and successfully implement a health plan's mailed FIT program. Different combinations of adaptations led to success with health system size emerging as an important contextual factor.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer prevention; Cancer screening outreach; Colorectal cancer; Implementation; Program adaptation
Authors: Theodore R Levin; Laura Jamieson; Daniel A Burley; Juan Reyes; Michael Oehrli; Cindy Caldwell Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2011-06-27 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Janet S de Moor; Robin A Cohen; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Susan A Sabatino; K Robin Yabroff; Stacey Fedewa; Richard Lee; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cheryl Altice; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Manuel Zorzi; Ugo Fedeli; Elena Schievano; Emanuela Bovo; Stefano Guzzinati; Susanna Baracco; Chiara Fedato; Mario Saugo; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos Journal: Gut Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Stacey A Fedewa; Jiemin Ma; Ann Goding Sauer; Rebecca L Siegel; Robert A Smith; Richard C Wender; Mary K Doroshenk; Otis W Brawley; Elizabeth M Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Beverly B Green; Ching-Yun Wang; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; Sharon Fuller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Ann G Zauber; Jeffrey K Lee; Wei K Zhao; Natalia Udaltsova; Nirupa R Ghai; Alexander T Lee; Charles P Quesenberry; Bruce H Fireman; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; William M Vollmer; Amanda Petrik; Josue Aguirre; Tanya Kapka; Jennifer Devoe; Jon Puro; Tran Miers; Jennifer Lembach; Ann Turner; Jennifer Sanchez; Sally Retecki; Christine Nelson; Beverly Green Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Melinda M Davis; Jennifer L Schneider; Amanda F Petrik; Edward J Miech; Brittany Younger; Anne L Escaron; Jennifer S Rivelli; Jamie H Thompson; Denis Nyongesa; Gloria D Coronado Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2022 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Vera Yakovchenko; Timothy R Morgan; Edward J Miech; Brittney Neely; Carolyn Lamorte; Sandra Gibson; Lauren A Beste; Heather McCurdy; Dawn Scott; Rachel I Gonzalez; Angela M Park; Byron J Powell; Jasmohan S Bajaj; Jason A Dominitz; Maggie Chartier; David B Ross; Matthew J Chinman; Shari S Rogal Journal: Hepatology Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 17.298
Authors: Edward J Miech; Anthony J Perkins; Ying Zhang; Laura J Myers; Jason J Sico; Joanne Daggy; Dawn M Bravata Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-07 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Gloria D Coronado; Michael C Leo; Katrina Ramsey; Jennifer Coury; Amanda F Petrik; Mary Patzel; Erin S Kenzie; Jamie H Thompson; Erik Brodt; Raj Mummadi; Nancy Elder; Melinda M Davis Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2022-04-13
Authors: Michaela S McCarthy; Lexus L Ujano-De Motta; Mary A Nunnery; Heather Gilmartin; Lynette Kelley; Ashlea Wills; Chelsea Leonard; Christine D Jones; Borsika A Rabin Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 7.327