A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, evidence-based interventions are viewed increasingly as essential for increasing the use of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to meet national targets. Multicomponent interventions involve complex care pathways and interactions across multiple levels, including the individual, health system, and community. METHODS: The authors developed a framework and identified metrics and data elements to evaluate the implementation processes, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of multicomponent interventions used in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program. RESULTS: Process measures to evaluate the implementation of interventions to increase community and patient demand for CRC screening, increase patient access, and increase provider delivery of services are presented. In addition, performance measures are identified to assess implementation processes along the continuum of care for screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Series of intermediate and long-term outcome and cost measures also are presented to evaluate the impact of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the effectiveness of multicomponent, evidence-based interventions and identifying successful approaches that can be replicated in other settings are essential to increase screening and reduce CRC burden. The use of common framework, data elements, and evaluation methods will allow the performance of comparative assessments of the interventions implemented across CRCCP sites to identify best practices for increasing colorectal screening, particularly among underserved populations, to reduce disparities in CRC incidence and mortality.

Assessing hearing and cognition challenges in consumer processing of televised risk information: Validation of self-reported measures using performance indicators.

Public health researchers face important challenges if they wish to include measures of hearing or cognitive ability in risk communication studies. We sought validity evidence for self-report measures of hearing and cognitive ability by comparing those measures to performance-based measures and risk information recall. We measured hearing ability (with audiologist-assisted assessment and self report), cognitive ability (with an established performance task and self report), and reactions to direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion with adults 18 and older (n = 1064) in North Carolina, USA, in 2017. We found moderate correspondence between self-reported hearing loss and audiologist-assessed hearing loss. Both measures also showed a small negative association with recall of presented risk information. Cognitive ability results suggested less substantial correspondence between self report and performance task and the measures differed in predicting risk recall. Our results suggested a moderately efficient measure for hearing ability for research on risk information exposure and retention, and yet also suggested the need for caution regarding future use of self-reported cognitive ability as a substitute for a performance-based measure.