Search

Background: In real-world settings, low adherence to lung cancer screening (LCS) diminishes population-level benefits of reducing lung cancer mortality. We describe the Larch Study protocol, which tests the effectiveness of two patient-centered interventions (Patient Voices Video and Stepped Reminders) designed to address barriers and improve annual LCS adherence., Methods: The Larch Study is a pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted within Kaiser Permanente Washington. Eligible patients (target n = 1606) are aged 50-78 years with an index low-dose CT (LDCT) of the chest with negative or benign findings. With a 2 × 2 factorial-design, patients are individually randomized to 1 of 4 arms: video only, reminders only, both video and reminders, or usual care. The Patient Voices video addresses patient education needs by normalizing LCS, reminding patients when LCS is due, and encouraging social support. Stepped Reminders prompts primary care physicians to order patient's repeat screening LDCT and patients to schedule their scan. Intervention delivery is embedded within routine healthcare, facilitated by shared electronic health record components. Primary outcome is adherence to national LCS clinical guidelines, defined as repeat LDCT within 9-15 months. Patient-reported outcomes are measured via survey (knowledge of LCS, perception of stigma) approximately 8 weeks after index LDCT. Our mixed-methods formative evaluation includes process data, collected during the trial, and interviews with trial participants and stakeholders., Discussion: Results will fill an important scientific gap on multilevel interventions to increase annual LCS adherence and provide opportunities for spread and scale to other healthcare settings., Registration: Trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (#NCT05747443)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Limited evidence-based implementation strategies exist for maintaining lung cancer screening. We evaluated the Lung Cancer Screening Program at Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA) to develop multilevel interventions to improve screening adherence., Methods: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods study 1) to measure adherence to repeat screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT); 2) to interview KPWA stakeholders to understand the Lung Cancer Screening Program; and 3) to conduct codesign workshops with KPWA members and researchers. We used descriptive statistics to describe adherence, and rapid qualitative data analysis for stakeholder interviews and workshops., Results: Between 2015 and 2019, 2089 KPWA members had initial LDCT scans with negative, benign or short-interval follow-up results. Among those with sufficient follow-up, the proportion with on-time repeat screening after a negative LDCT was 26.4% after the initial scan, and increased to 43.1% on subsequent scans. Opportunities for health-care system improvement included clarification of clinical roles and responsibilities, care coordination across providers, ongoing training in lung cancer screening, and revising electronic health record tools. From patient perspectives, facilitators to repeat screening were making screening personalized and convenient; offering consistent messages and reminders in different modes; increasing patient knowledge about benefits, harms, and expectations of LDCT; and providing nonfinancial and financial incentives for adherence. From a storyboard exercise, we identified 10 design features for lung cancer screening interventions, including versatility of communication, social support, and knowledge., Conclusion: We identified clear gaps in adherence to lung cancer screenings, organizational and clinical barriers to care, and design features for patient-centered interventions to improve lung cancer screening in US settings.

Background: Long-term adherence to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is particularly important for fecal testing. Some U.S. studies report that only 25% of individuals repeat fecal testing annually. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by patients with suboptimal screening adherence to refine interventions for starting ongoing adherence to CRC screening. We also explored whether participants, particularly never screeners, would be willing to do a CRC screening blood test., Methods: Forty-one patients who previously enrolled in the Systems of Support to Increase CRC Screening (SOS) trial were interviewed 4-5 years later. Participants were purposively selected to include men and women with diverse race/ethnicities who had either been inconsistent screeners or had never screened during the first three years of SOS despite receiving at least two rounds of mailed fecal tests. Two interviewers conducted 30-min telephone interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. An iterative thematic analysis approach was used., Results: Themes related to screening barriers were more pervasive among never screeners including: (1) Avoidance (inattention, procrastination) (2) Concerns about handling stool; (3) Health concerns; (4) Fear of a cancer diagnosis or positive test results. Themes related to screening facilitators were more often mentioned by participants who screened at least once including: (1) Use of a simpler 1-sample fecal test; (2) Convenience of mailings and doing the test at home; (3) Salience of prevention, especially as one got older; and (4) Influence of recommendations from providers, family and friends. Participants had diverse preferences for the number (3 on average) and types (phone, mail, text) of screening reminders. Some participants did not prefer e-mail links to the patient shared electronic health record because of difficulties remembering their password. It was acceptable for a nurse or medical assistant not from their clinic to call them as long as that person was knowledgeable about their records and could communicate with their physician. Participants, especially never screeners, were generally very enthusiastic about the potential option of a CRC screening blood test., Conclusion: Future CRC screening programs should be designed to minimize these barriers and maximize facilitators to improve long-term screening adherence., Trial Registration: Primary Funding Agency: The National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01CA121125). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT00697047 .

Objective: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) includes comprehensive chronic illness and preventive services, including identifying patients who are overdue for colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). The association between PCMH implementation and CRCS during the Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial (SOS) is described., Methods: The SOS enrolled 4664 patients from 21 clinics from August 2008 to November 2009. Patients were randomized to usual care, mailed fecal kits, kits plus brief assistance, or kits plus assistance and navigation. A PCMH model that included a workflow for facilitating CRCS was implemented at all study clinics in late 2009. Patients enrolled early had little exposure to the PCMH, whereas patients enrolled later were exposed during most of their first year in the trial. Logistic regression models were used to assess the association between PCMH exposure and CRCS., Results: Usual care patients with ≥8 months in the PCMH had higher CRCS rates than those with ≤4 months in the PCMH (adjusted difference, 10.1%; 95% confidence interval, 5.7-14.6). SOS interventions led to significant increases in CRCS, but the magnitude of effect was attenuated by exposure to the PCMH (P for interaction = .01)., Conclusion: Exposure to a PCMH was associated with higher CRCS rates. Automated mailed and centrally delivered stepped interventions increased CRCS rates, even in the presence of a PCMH., (© Copyright 2016 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Heterogeneity in healthcare systems' organizational structures, policies and decisions influences practice implementation and care delivery. While quantitative data harmonization has been used to compare outcomes, few have conducted cross-site qualitative inquiry of healthcare delivery; thus, little is known about how to harmonize qualitative data across multiple settings. Objective: We illustrate a methodological approach for a theory-driven qualitative data harmonization process for the PROSPR II Cervical Research Center, a large multi-site, mixedmethods study evaluating cervical cancer screening across three diverse healthcare settings. Methods: We compared three geographically, socio-demographically, and structurally diverse healthcare systems using a multi-modal qualitative data collection strategy. We grounded our sampling strategy in a cervical cancer screening process model, then tailored it for system-specific differences (e.g., clinic staffing structure and individual roles). Data collection tools included domains corresponding to shared research objectives (e.g., abnormal follow-up) while accommodating local context. Analysis drew on operational domains from the screening process model and constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Normalization Process Theory. Results: Exemplars demonstrate how data harmonization revealed insights suggesting opportunities to improve clinical processes across healthcare systems. Discussion: This analysis advances the application of qualitative methods in implementation science, where assessing context is key to responding to organizational challenges and shaping implementation strategies across multiple health systems. We demonstrate how systematically collecting, analyzing and harmonizing qualitative data elucidates the impact of process factors and accelerates efforts to identify opportunities for quality improvement interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]