Search

The Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) is an independent, nonfederal panel of experts that uses systematic reviews to develop recommendations about community preventive services and programs to improve population health. METHODS A sample of NIH staff and NIH-funded external researchers were interviewed regarding their familiarity with IE as a conclusion from systematic reviews and CPSTF IE findings. Among those rated as low users of IE findings, 2 reported an occasional use of IE findings to develop funding opportunity announcements and described IE findings as useful for justifying the need to address the topics without an evidence base. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to increase cancer screenings in safety net primary care systems has great potential for reducing cancer disparities. Yet there is a gap in understanding the factors and mechanisms that influence EBP implementation within these high-priority systems. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), our study aims to fill this gap with a multiple case study of health care safety net systems that were funded by an American Cancer Society (ACS) grants program to increase breast and colorectal cancer screening rates. The initiative funded 68 safety net systems to increase cancer screening through implementation of evidence-based provider and client-oriented strategies.Methods: Data are from a mixed-methods evaluation with nine purposively selected safety net systems. Fifty-two interviews were conducted with project leaders, implementers, and ACS staff. Funded safety net systems were categorized into high-, medium-, and low-performing cases based on the level of EBP implementation. Within- and cross-case analyses were performed to identify CFIR constructs that influenced level of EBP implementation.Results: Of 39 CFIR constructs examined, six distinguished levels of implementation. Two constructs were from the intervention characteristics domain: adaptability and trialability. Three were from the inner setting domain: leadership engagement, tension for change, and access to information and knowledge. Engaging formally appointed internal implementation leaders, from the process domain, also distinguished level of implementation. No constructs from the outer setting or individual characteristics domain differentiated systems by level of implementation.Conclusions: Our study identified a number of influential CFIR constructs and illustrated how they impacted EBP implementation across a variety of safety net systems. Findings may inform future dissemination efforts of EBPs for increasing cancer screening in similar settings. Moreover, our analytic approach is similar to previous case studies using CFIR and hence could facilitate comparisons across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer screening utilization steeply dropped at the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the effects on breast cancer screening in lower income populations are unknown. This study examined changes in breast cancer screening rates (BCSRs) during the pandemic among 32 community health centers (CHCs) that provided health care to lower income populations., Methods: Secondary data from 32 CHCs participating in an American Cancer Society grant program to increase breast cancer screening services were used. BCSRs were defined as the percentage of women aged 50 to 74 years who had a medical visit in the past 12 months (142,207 in 2018, 142,003 in 2019, and 150,630 in 2020) and received a screening mammogram within the last 27 months. BCSRs in July 2020, July 2019, and June 2018 were compared with screening rate ratios (SRRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: BCSRs significantly rose by 18% between 2018 and 2019 (from 45.8% to 53.9%; SRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.18) and then declined by 8% between 2019 and 2020 (from 53.9% to 49.6%; SRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.92-0.93). If the 2018-2019 BCSR trends had continued through 2020, 63.3% of women would have been screened in 2020 in contrast to the 49.6% who were; this potentially translated into 47,517 fewer mammograms and 242 missed breast cancer diagnoses in this population., Conclusions: In this study of 32 CHCs, BCSRs declined by 8% from July 2019 to 2020, and this reversed an 18% improvement between July 2018 and 2019. Declining BCSRs among CHCs during the COVID-19 pandemic call for policies to support and resources to identify women in need of screening., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Annual lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose chest computed tomography in older current and former smokers (ie, eligible adults) has been recommended since 2013. Uptake has been slow and variable across the United States. We estimated the LCS rate and growth at the national and state level between 2016 and 2018., Methods: The American College of Radiology's Lung Cancer Screening Registry was used to capture screening events. Population-based surveys, the US Census, and cancer registry data were used to estimate the number of eligible adults and lung cancer mortality (ie, burden). Lung cancer screening rates (SRs) in eligible adults and screening rate ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure changes by state and year., Results: Nationally, the SR was steady between 2016 (3.3%, 95% CI = 3.3% to 3.7%) and 2017 (3.4%, 95% CI = 3.4% to 3.9%), increasing to 5.0% (95% CI = 5.0% to 5.7%) in 2018 (2018 vs 2016 SR ratio = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.62). In 2018, several southern states with a high lung-cancer burden (eg, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas) had relatively low SRs (<4%) among eligible adults, whereas several northeastern states with lower lung cancer burden (eg, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire) had the highest SRs (12.8%-15.2%). The exception was Kentucky, which had the nation's highest lung cancer mortality rate and one of the highest SRs (13.7%)., Conclusions: Fewer than 1 in 20 eligible adults received LCS nationally, and uptake varied widely across states. LCS rates were not aligned with lung cancer burden across states, except for Kentucky, which has supported comprehensive efforts to implement LCS., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) to screen for lung cancer is associated with improved outcomes among eligible current and former smokers (ie, aged 55-77, at least 30-pack-year smoking history, current smoker or former smoker who quit within the past 15 years). However, the overall uptake of LDCT is low, especially in health care settings with limited personnel and financial resources. To increase access to lung cancer screening services, the American Cancer Society partnered with 2 federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Tennessee and West Virginia to conduct a pilot project focused on developing and refining the LDCT screening referral processes and practices. Each FQHC was required to partner with an American College of Radiology-designated lung cancer screening center in its area to ensure high-quality patient care. The pilot project was conducted in 2 phases: 6 months of capacity building (January-June 2016) followed by 2 years of implementation (July 2016-June 2018). One site created a sustainable LDCT referral program, and the other site encountered numerous barriers and failed to overcome them. This case study highlights implementation barriers and factors associated with success and improved outcomes in LDCT screening.

In recent years, studies have shown that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is a safe and effective way to screen high-risk adults for lung cancer. Despite this, uptake remains low, especially in limited-resource settings. The American Cancer Society (ACS) partnered with two federally qualified health centers and accredited screening facilities on a 2 year pilot project to implement an LDCT screening program. Both sites attempted to develop a referral program and care coordination practices to move patients through the screening continuum and identify critical facilitators and barriers to implementation. Evaluators conducted key informant interviews (N = 46) with clinical and administrative staff, as well as regional ACS staff during annual site visits. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided our analysis of factors associated with effective implementation and improved screening outcomes. One study site established a sustainable lung screening program, while the other struggled to overcome significant implementation barriers. Increased time spent with patients, disruption to normal workflows, and Medicaid reimbursement policies presented challenges at both sites. Supportive, engaged leaders and knowledgeable champions who provided clear implementation guidance improved staff engagement and were able to train, guide, and motivate staff throughout the intervention. A slow, stepwise implementation process allowed one site's project champions to pilot test new processes and resolve issues before scaling up. This pilot study provides critical insights into the necessary resources and steps for successful lung cancer screening program implementation in underserved settings. Future efforts can build upon these findings and identify and address possible facilitators and barriers to screening program implementation., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.)