Implementation Science Communications (Sep 2023)

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers

  • Renée M. Ferrari,
  • Jennifer Leeman,
  • Alison T. Brenner,
  • Sara Y. Correa,
  • Teri L. Malo,
  • Alexis A. Moore,
  • Meghan C. O’Leary,
  • Connor M. Randolph,
  • Shana Ratner,
  • Leah Frerichs,
  • Deeonna Farr,
  • Seth D. Crockett,
  • Stephanie B. Wheeler,
  • Kristen Hassmiller Lich,
  • Evan Beasley,
  • Michelle Hogsed,
  • Ashley Bland,
  • Claudia Richardson,
  • Mike Newcomer,
  • Daniel S. Reuland

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00485-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 1
pp. 1 – 20

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? Methods During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention’s core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. Results Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. Conclusions This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.

Keywords