Kruse, Gina R.;
Percac-Lima, Sanja;
Barber-Dubois, Marjanna;
Davies, Madeline E.;
Gundersen, Daniel A.;
Ho, Oanh;
Mascioli, Lynette;
Munshi, Mehezbin;
Perry, Sarah;
Singh, Deepinder;
Thomas, Annette;
Emmons, Karen M.;
Haas, Jennifer S.
Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study
Contributor:
Kruse, Gina R.;
Percac-Lima, Sanja;
Barber-Dubois, Marjanna;
Davies, Madeline E.;
Gundersen, Daniel A.;
Ho, Oanh;
Mascioli, Lynette;
Munshi, Mehezbin;
Perry, Sarah;
Singh, Deepinder;
Thomas, Annette;
Emmons, Karen M.;
Haas, Jennifer S.
Published:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2024
Published in:
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 39 (2024) 7, Seite 1188-1195
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1007/s11606-024-08654-5
ISSN:
0884-8734;
1525-1497
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
Abstract Background Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies. Objective To measure effects of bundling fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) and SDOH screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Design Clustered stepped-wedge trial. Participants Four Massachusetts FQHCs randomized to implement bundled FIT-SDOH over 8-week “steps.” Intervention Outreach to 50–75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting. Main Measures Implementation process descriptions, data from facilitation meetings, and CRC and SDOH screening rates. Rates were compared between implementation and control FQHCs in each “step” by fitting generalized linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts for FQHCs, patients, and “step” by FQHC. Key Results FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation “steps” compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across “steps.” Conclusions As healthcare systems are required to conduct more screenings, it is notable that outreach for a long-standing cancer screening requirement increased screening, even when bundled with a newer screening requirement. This outreach was feasible in a real-world safety-net clinical population and may conserve resources, especially compared to more complex or intensive outreach strategies. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04585919