Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives

Authors: Elizabeth G Liles, Jennifer L Schneider, Adrianne C Feldstein, David M Mosen, Nancy Perrin, Ana Gabriela Rosales, David H Smith

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Few studies describe system-level challenges or facilitators to implementing population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening outreach programs. Our qualitative study explored viewpoints of multilevel stakeholders before, during, and after implementation of a centralized outreach program. Program implementation was part of a broader quality-improvement initiative.

Methods

During 2008–2010, we conducted semi-structured, open-ended individual interviews and focus groups at Kaiser Permanente Northwest (KPNW), a not-for-profit group model health maintenance organization using the practical robust implementation and sustainability model to explore external and internal barriers to CRC screening. We interviewed 55 stakeholders: 8 health plan leaders, 20 primary care providers, 4 program managers, and 23 endoscopy specialists (15 gastroenterologists, 8 general surgeons), and analyzed interview transcripts to identify common as well as divergent opinions expressed by stakeholders.

Results

The majority of stakeholders at various levels consistently reported that an automated telephone-reminder system to contact patients and coordinate mailing fecal tests alleviated organizational constraints on staff’s time and resources. Changing to a single-sample fecal immunochemical test (FIT) lessened patient and provider concerns about feasibility and accuracy of fecal testing. The centralized telephonic outreach program did, however, result in some screening duplication and overuse. Higher rates of FIT completion and a higher proportion of positive results with FIT required more colonoscopies.

Conclusions

Addressing barriers at multiple levels of a health system by changing the delivery system design to add a centralized outreach program, switching to a more accurate and easier-to-use fecal test, and providing educational and electronic support had both benefits and problematic consequences. Other health care organizations can use our results to understand the complexities of implementing centralized screening programs.
Literature
1.
2.
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, O’Brien MJ, Gottlieb LS, Sternberg SS, et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1977–81.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:1541–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Atkin WS, Cuzick J, Northover JM, Whynes DK. Prevention of colorectal cancer by once-only sigmoidoscopy. Lancet. 1993;341:736–40.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Liles E, Beil TL, Fu R. Screening for colorectal cancer: a targeted, updated systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:638–58.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:130–60.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Steinwachs D, Allen JD, Barlow WE, Duncan RP, Egede LE, Friedman LS, et al. National Institutes of Health state-of-the-science conference statement: enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:663–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Sequist TD, Zaslavsky AM, Marshall R, Fletcher RH, Ayanian JZ. Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:364–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Stokamer CL, Tenner CT, Chaudhuri J, Vazquez E, Bini EJ. Randomized controlled trial of the impact of intensive patient education on compliance with fecal occult blood testing. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:278–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Church TR, Yeazel MW, Jones RM, Kochevar LK, Watt GD, Mongin SJ, et al. A randomized trial of direct mailing of fecal occult blood tests to increase colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:770–80.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Siddiqui MR, Sajid MS, Khatri K, Kanri B, Cheek E, Baig MK. The role of physician reminders in faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening. Eur J Gen Pract. 2011;17:221–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Hoffman RM, Steel SR, Yee EF, Massie L, Schrader RM, Moffett ML, et al. A system-based intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake. Am J Manag Care. 2011;17:49–55.PubMed
13.
Brouwers MC, De Vito C, Bahirathan L, Carol A, Carroll JC, Cotterchio M, et al. What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Jandorf L, Gutierrez Y, Lopez J, Christie J, Itzkowitz SH. Use of a patient navigator to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban neighborhood health clinic. J Urban Health. 2005;82:216–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Lynge E, Tornberg S, Von Karsa L, Segnan N, Van Delden JJ. Determinants of successful implementation of population-based cancer screening programmes. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:743–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Denzin N, Lincoln Y. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2011.
17.
Outhwaite W, Turner S. The SAGE handbook of social science methodology. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2007.CrossRef
18.
Stake RE. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 1995.
19.
Mosen DM, Feldstein AC, Perrin N, Rosales AG, Smith DH, Liles EG, et al. Automated telephone calls improved completion of fecal occult blood testing. Med Care. 2010;48:604–10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Silverman D. Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2010.
21.
Morse J, Field P. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, Inc; 1995.
22.
Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008;34:228–43.PubMed
23.
Glasgow RE, Marcus AC, Bull SS, Wilson KM. Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions. Cancer. 2004;101:1239–50.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:3–12.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ellis P, Robinson P, Ciliska D, Armour T, Raina P, Brouwers M, et al. Diffusion and dissemination of evidence-based cancer control interventions. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003;79:1–5.
26.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 1995.
27.
Bradley EH, Webster TR, Baker D, Schlesinger M, Inouye SK, Barth MC, et al. Translating research into practice: speeding the adoption of innovative health care programs. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund) 2004 July (724),1-12.
28.
Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning: an educational and ecological approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.; 1999.
29.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2002.
30.
Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide for researchers in education and social sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press; 1991.
31.
Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997.CrossRef
32.
Pope C, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publications/BMJ Books; 2006.CrossRef
33.
Wolcott H. Transforming qualitative data: description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
34.
Bernard R, Ryan GW. Analyzing qualitative data: systematic approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2010.
35.
DeGroff A, Boehm J, Goode GS, Holden D, Seeff LC. Facilitators and challenges to start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5:A39.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
DeGroff A, Holden D, Goode GS, Boehm J, Seeff LC, Tangka F. Start-up of the colorectal cancer screening demonstration program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5:A38.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Rohan EA, Boehm JE, DeGroff A, Glover-Kudon R, Preissle J. Implementing the CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field. Cancer. 2013;119 Suppl 15:2870–83.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zapka JG, Lemon SC. Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations. Cancer. 2004;101:1165–87.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Vogt TM, Glass A, Glasgow RE, La Chance PA, Lichtenstein E. The safety net: a cost-effective approach to improving breast and cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2003;12:789–98.CrossRef
40.
Hardcastle JD, Chamberlain JO, Robinson MH, Moss SM, Amar SS, Balfour TW, et al. Randomised controlled trial of faecal-occult-blood screening for colorectal cancer. Lancet. 1996;348:1472–7.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Mant D, Fuller A, Northover J, Astrop P, Chivers A, Crockett A, et al. Patient compliance with colorectal cancer screening in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1992;42:18–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Ore L, Hagoel L, Lavi I, Rennert G. Screening with faecal occult blood test (FOBT) for colorectal cancer: assessment of two methods that attempt to improve compliance. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2001;10:251–6.CrossRefPubMed
43.
King J, Fairbrother G, Thompson C, Morris DL. Colorectal cancer screening: optimal compliance with postal faecal occult blood test. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992;62:714–9.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Myers RE, Ross EA, Wolf TA, Balshem A, Jepson C, Millner L. Behavioral interventions to increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 1991;29:1039–50.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30:464–71.CrossRef
46.
47.
Quintero E, Castells A, Bujanda L, Cubiella J, Salas D, Lanas A, et al. Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:697–706.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Green BB, Wang CY, Anderson ML, Chubak J, Meenan RT, Vernon SW, et al. An automated intervention with stepped increases in support to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:301–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Myers RE, Sifri R, Hyslop T, Rosenthal M, Vernon SW, Cocroft J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the impact of targeted and tailored interventions on colorectal cancer screening. Cancer. 2007;110:2083–91.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Saleem JJ, Militello LG, Arbuckle N, Flanagan M, Haggstrom DA, Linder JA, et al. Provider perceptions of colorectal cancer screening clinical decision support at three benchmark institutions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009;2009:558–62.PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
DeJesus RS, Angstman KB, Kesman R, Stroebel RJ, Bernard ME, Scheitel SM, et al. Use of a clinical decision support system to increase osteoporosis screening. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18:89–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
52.
Frosch DL, Singer KJ, Timmermans S. Conducting implementation research in community-based primary care: a qualitative study on integrating patient decision support interventions for cancer screening into routine practice. Health Expect. 2011;14 Suppl 1:73–84.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications—clinical decision support systems literature review. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:15–37.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2010;182:E216–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Bian J, Bennett CL, Fisher DA, Ribeiro M, Lipscomb J. Unintended consequences of health information technology: evidence from veterans affairs colorectal cancer oncology watch intervention. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3947–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Subramanian S, Bobashev G, Morris RJ. When budgets are tight, there are better options than colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29:1734–40.CrossRef
57.
Seeff LC, Richards TB, Shapiro JA, Nadel MR, Manninen DL, Given LS, et al. How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC’s survey of endoscopic capacity. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1670–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives
Authors
Elizabeth G Liles
Jennifer L Schneider
Adrianne C Feldstein
David M Mosen
Nancy Perrin
Ana Gabriela Rosales
David H Smith
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0227-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue

Study protocol

A multi-faceted knowledge translation approach to support persons with stroke and cognitive impairment: evaluation protocol

Debate

Hiding in plain sight: communication theory in implementation science

Systematic review

Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria

Study protocol

Implementation and evaluation of the VA DPP clinical demonstration: protocol for a multi-site non-randomized hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III trial

Research

Guidelines for the use of survivorship care plans: a systematic quality appraisal using the AGREE II instrument

Research

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care)