Assessing the use of constructs from the consolidated framework for implementation research in U.S. rural cancer screening promotion programs: a systematic search and scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is suboptimal in rural areas, and interventions are needed to improve uptake. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a widely-used implementation science framework to optimize planning and delivery of evidence-based interventions, which may be particularly useful for screening promotion in rural areas. We examined the discussion of CFIR-defined domains and constructs in programs to improve cancer screening in rural areas. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of research databases (e.g., Medline, CINAHL) to identify studies (published through November 2022) of cancer screening promotion programs delivered in rural areas in the United States. We identified 166 records, and 15 studies were included. Next, two reviewers used a standardized abstraction tool to conduct a critical scoping review of CFIR constructs in rural cancer screening promotion programs. RESULTS: Each study reported at least some CFIR domains and constructs, but studies varied in how they were reported. Broadly, constructs from the domains of Process, Intervention, and Outer setting were commonly reported, but constructs from the domains of Inner setting and Individuals were less commonly reported. The most common constructs were planning (100% of studies reporting), followed by adaptability, cosmopolitanism, and reflecting and evaluating (86.7% for each). No studies reported tension for change, self-efficacy, or opinion leader. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging CFIR in the planning and delivery of cancer screening promotion programs in rural areas can improve program implementation. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the impact of underutilized CFIR domains, i.e., Inner setting and Individuals, on cancer screening programs.

Improving cervical cancer screening rates: a scoping review of resources and interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical cancer mortality can be prevented through early detection with screening methods such as Pap and high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests; however, only 81% of women aged 21-65 are up-to-date on screening. Many interventions to increase cervical cancer screening have been implemented, but there is limited understanding about which intervention components are most successful. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of existing literature and available resources for cervical cancer screening interventions to identify gaps in the research. We used t tests and correlations to identify associations among intervention components and effect sizes. RESULTS: Out of nine studies, the mean overall effect size for interventions was 11.3% increase in Pap testing for cervical cancer screening (range = - 4-24%). Interventions that included community health workers or one-on-one interaction had the biggest effect size (p < 0.05). No associations with effect size were noted for literacy level, number of intervention components, or targeting by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions may include educational sessions with community health workers or one-on-one patient interaction to improve cervical cancer screening. Further research is needed to establish effect sizes for large-scale interventions and hrHPV screening interventions.

Perspectives on self-sampling for cancer screening among rural and urban women: Multilevel factors related to acceptability.

PURPOSE: Self-sampling tests may be used to overcome barriers to screening that are more prevalent in rural populations compared to urban populations. This study aims to qualitatively examine the attitudes toward established and novel self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer among women, comparing themes from rural versus urban areas. METHODS: We recruited women (ages 45-65) from 28 counties in Pennsylvania. Four focus groups were conducted with women from metropolitan counties, and 7 focus groups were conducted with women from nonmetropolitan counties. A brief survey was conducted prior to the focus group regarding general health and willingness to complete self-sampling tests for cervical and colorectal cancer. FINDINGS: We identified 3 themes about the potential for self-sampling for cancer screening: advantages and disadvantages of self-sampling compared to traditional testing, impact of self-sampling on patient interactions with their health care providers/clinics, and implications for improving/worsening access to quality health care services. We detected differences in responses from rural versus urban participants in the potential impact of self-sampling for cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, and organizational levels that influence the feasibility of implementing self-sampling for cancer screening in routine clinical practice. Rural participants face unique barriers to cancer screening across all levels. These findings can be used to guide interventions aimed at increasing the use of self-sampling methods.

Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources.

BACKGROUND: Early detection through screening can reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality, but approximately 33% of adults aged 50-75 are not getting screened as recommended. Many interventions to increase CRC screening have been tested, but clinical and community organizations may be challenged in identifying the optimum programs and program materials to increase screening and ultimately reduce CRC mortality. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to characterize existing, US-based interventions to improve CRC screening and to identify gaps in the literature. We used t-tests and correlations to analyze the relationship between project features and intervention effect sizes. RESULTS: The overall effect sizes were + 16% for changes in screening by any modality. The average effect sizes were greater for projects with more components, used patient navigation, and provided free/low-cost testing. CONCLUSION: Interventions varied greatly in terms of follow-up time, test modality, and data sources. Organizations seeking to implement a program aimed at increasing CRC screening should consider both intervention components and relevant program materials.