Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees Research Articles

Adoption and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Among Cancer Control Program Grantees, 2009-2015.

Purpose and ObjectivesColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees’ perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees’ reasons for stopping EBI implementation.Intervention ApproachCDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates.Evaluation MethodsWe surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation.ResultsMost grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity.Implications for Public HealthCRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.

Expenditures on Screening Promotion Activities in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009-2014.

IntroductionThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) established the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 to reduce disparities in colorectal cancer screening and increase screening and follow-up as recommended. We estimate the cost for evidence-based intervention and non–evidence-based intervention screening promotion activities and examine expenditures on screening promotion activities. We also identify factors associated with the costs of these activities.MethodsBy using cost and resource use data collected from 25 state grantees over multiple years (July 2009 to June 2014), we analyzed the total cost for each screening promotion activity. Multivariate analysis was used to assess the factors associated with screening promotion costs reported by grantees.ResultsThe promotion activities with the largest allocation of funding across the years and grantees were mass media, patient navigation, outreach and education, and small media. Across all years of the program and across grantees, the amount spent on specific promotion activities varied widely. The factor significantly associated with promotion costs was region in which the grantee was located.ConclusionCDC’s CRCCP grantees spent the largest amount of the screening promotion funds on mass media, which is not recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Given the large variation across grantees in the use of and expenditures on screening promotion interventions, a systematic assessment of the yield from investment in specific promotion activities could better guide optimal resource allocation.

Developing a Web-Based Cost Assessment Tool for Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs.

IntroductionWe developed a web-based cost assessment tool (CAT) to collect cost data as an improvement from a desktop instrument to perform economic evaluations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) grantees. We describe the development of the web-based CAT, evaluate the quality of the data obtained, and discuss lessons learned.MethodsWe developed and refined a web-based CAT to collect 5 years (2009–2014) of cost data from 29 CRCCP grantees. We analyzed funding distribution; costs by budget categories; distribution of costs related to screening promotion, screening provision, and overarching activities; and reporting of screenings for grantees that received funding from non-CDC sources compared with those grantees that did not.ResultsCDC provided 85.6% of the resources for the CRCCP, with smaller amounts from in-kind contributions (7.8%), and funding from other sources (6.6%) (eg, state funding). Grantees allocated, on average, 95% of their expenditures to specific program activities and 5% to other activities. Some non-CDC funds were used to provide screening tests to additional people, and these additional screens were captured in the CAT.ConclusionA web-based tool can be successfully used to collect cost data on expenditures associated with CRCCP activities. Areas for future refinement include how to collect and allocate dollars from other sources in addition to CDC dollars.

Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) provided funding to 29 grantees to increase colorectal cancer screening. We describe the screening promotion costs of CRCCP grantees to evaluate the extent to which the program model resulted in the use of funding to support interventions recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). We analyzed expenditures for screening promotion for the first three years of the CRCCP to assess cost per promotion strategy, and estimated the cost per person screened at the state level based on various projected increases in screening rates. All grantees engaged in small media activities and more than 90% used either client reminders, provider assessment and feedback, or patient navigation. Based on all expenditures, projected cost per eligible person screened for a 1%, 5%, and 10% increase in state-level screening proportions are $172, $34, and $17, respectively. CRCCP grantees expended the majority of their funding on Community Guide recommended screening promotion strategies but about a third was spent on other interventions. Based on this finding, future CRC programs should be provided with targeted education and information on evidence-based strategies, rather than broad based recommendations, to ensure that program funds are expended mainly on evidence-based interventions.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions to Address Disparities in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers that affect both men and women. Despite strong evidence of their effectiveness, CRC screening tests are underused. Racial/ethnic minority groups, persons without insurance, those with lower educational attainment, and those with lower household income levels have lower rates of CRC screening. Since 2009, CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) has supported state health departments and tribal organizations in implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase use of CRC screening tests among their populations. This report highlights the successful implementation of EBIs to address disparities by two CRCCP grantees: the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) and Washington State's Breast, Cervical, and Colon Health Program (BCCHP). ANTHC partnered with regional tribal health organizations in the Alaska Tribal Health System to implement provider and client reminders and use patient navigators to increase CRC screening rates among Alaska Native populations. BCCHP identified patient care coordinators in each clinic who coordinated staff training on CRC screening and integrated client and provider reminder systems. In both the Alaska and Washington programs, instituting provider reminder systems, client reminder systems, or both was facilitated by use of electronic health record systems. Using multicomponent interventions in a single clinical site or facility can support more organized screening programs and potentially result in greater increases in screening rates than relying on a single strategy. Organized screening systems have an explicit policy for screening, a defined target population, a team responsible for implementation of the screening program, and a quality assurance structure. Although CRC screening rates in the United States have increased steadily over the past decade, this increase has not been seen equally across all populations. Increasing the use of EBIs, such as those described in this report, in health care clinics and systems that serve populations with lower CRC screening rates could substantially increase CRC screening rates.

Patient Navigation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers affecting both men and women in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supports both direct clinical screening services (screening provision) and activities to promote screening at the population level (screening promotion). The purpose of this study was to characterize patient navigation (PN) programs for screening provision and promotion for the first 1 to 2 years of program funding. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the 29 CRCCP grantees (25 states and 4 tribal organizations) and 14 in-depth interviews to assess program implementation. The survey and interview guide collected information on CRC screening provision and promotion activities and PN, including the structure of the PN program, characteristics of the navigators, funding mechanism, and navigators' activities. Twenty-four of 28 CRCCP grantees of the survey used PN for screening provision whereas 18 grantees used navigation for screening promotion. Navigators were often trained in nursing or public health. Navigation activities were similar for both screening provision and promotion, and common tasks included assessing and responding to patient barriers to screening, providing patient education, and scheduling appointments. For screening provision, activities centered on making reminder calls, educating patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopies, and tracking patients for completion of the tests. Navigation may influence screening quality by improving patients' bowel preparation for colonoscopies. Our study provides insights into PN across a federally funded CRC program. Results suggest that PN activities may be instrumental in recruiting people into cancer screening and ensuring completed screening and follow-up.

Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees in the U.S.

BackgroundPractitioners often require training and technical assistance to build their capacity to select, adapt, and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to promote CRC screening to increase population-level screening. This study identified the training and technical assistance (TA) needs and preferences for training related to the implementation of EBIs among CRCCP grantees.MethodsTwenty-nine CRCCP grantees completed an online survey about their screening activities, training and technical assistance in 2012. They rated desire for training on various evidence-based strategies to increase cancer screening, evidence-based competencies, and program management topics. They also reported preferences for training formats and facilitators and barriers to trainings.ResultsMany CRCCP grantees expressed the need for training with regards to specific EBIs, especially system-level and provider-directed EBIs to promote CRC screening. Grantees rated these EBIs as more difficult to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees also reported a moderate need for training regarding finding EBIs, assessing organizational capacity, implementing selected EBIs, and conducting process and outcome evaluations. Other desired training topics reported with higher frequency were partnership development and data collection/evaluation. Grantees preferred training formats that were interactive such as on-site trainings, webinars or expert consultants.ConclusionsPublic health organizations need greater supports for adopting evidence-based interventions, working with organizational-level change, partnership development and data management. Future capacity building efforts for the adoption of EBIs should focus on systems or provider level interventions and key processes for health promotion and should be delivered in a variety of ways to assist local organizations in cancer prevention and control.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1386-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees in the U.S.

Assessment of training and technical assistance needs of Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees in the U.S.

Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colorectal cancer control program grantees and nongrantees, 2011-2012.

IntroductionSince 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).MethodsWe conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.ResultsCRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).ConclusionResults suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program’s potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates.

Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees’ Use of Evidence-Based Interventions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is recommended for adults aged 50-75 years, yet screening rates are low, especially among the uninsured. The CDC initiated the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) in 2009 with the goal of increasing CRC screening rates to 80% by 2014. A total of 29 grantees (states and tribal organizations) receive CRCCP funding to (1) screen uninsured adults and (2) promote CRC screening at the population level. CRCCP encourages grantees to use one or more of five evidence-based interventions (EBIs) recommended by the Guide to Community Preventive Services. The purpose of the study was to evaluate grantees' EBI use. A web-based survey was conducted in 2011 measuring grantees' use of CRC screening EBIs and identifying their implementation partners. Data were analyzed in 2012. Twenty-eight grantees (97%) completed the survey. Most respondents (96%) used small media. Fewer used client reminders (75%); reduction of structural barriers (50%); provider reminders (32%); or provider assessment and feedback (50%). Provider-oriented EBIs were rated as harder to implement than client-oriented EBIs. Grantees partnered with several types of organizations to implement EBIs, many with county- or state-wide reach. Almost all grantees implement EBIs to promote CRC screening, but the EBIs that may have the greatest impact with CRC screening are implemented by fewer grantees in the first 2 years of the CRCCP.

Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees’ Use of Evidence-Based Interventions

Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees’ Use of Evidence-Based Interventions

Small Media and Client Reminders for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Current Use and Gap Areas in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program

IntroductionCDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funds 25 states and 4 tribal organizations to promote and increase colorectal cancer screening population-wide. The CRCCP grantees must use evidence-based strategies from the Guide to Community Preventive Services, including small media and client reminders.MethodsTo assess the existing resources and needs to promote colorectal cancer screening, we conducted 2 web-based surveys of CRCCP grantees and their community partners. Survey 1 sought to identify priority populations, the number and quality of existing colorectal cancer resources for different population subgroups, and the types of small media and client reminder they were most interested in using. Survey 2 assessed screening messages that were used in the past or might be used in the future, needs for non-English–language information, and preferences for screening-related terminology.ResultsIn survey 1 (n = 125 from 26 CRCCPs), most respondents (83%) indicated they currently had some information resources for promoting screening but were widely dissatisfied with the quality and number of these resources. They reported the greatest need for resources targeting rural populations (62% of respondents), men (53%), and Hispanics (45%). In survey 2 (n = 57 from 25 CRCCPs), respondents indicated they were most likely to promote colorectal cancer screening using messages that emphasized family (95%), role models (85%), or busy lives (83%), and least likely to use messages based on faith (26%), embarrassment (25%), or fear (22%). Nearly all (85%) indicated a need for resources in languages other than English; 16 different languages were mentioned, most commonly Spanish.ConclusionThese findings provide the first picture of CRCCP information resources and interests, and point to specific gaps that must be addressed to help increase screening.