Review ArticleClinical Review

Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in Primary Care: A Systematic Review

Kamala Adhikari, Kimberly Manalili, Jessica Law, Madison Bischoff and Gary F. Teare
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine July 2022, 35 (4) 840-858; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.04.210399

References

  1. 1.↵
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Colorectal cancer screening. IARC Handb Cancer Prev 2019;17:1–300. http://publications.iarc.fr/573.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ferlay JE,
    2. Lam F,
    3. Colombet M,
    4. et al
    . Global cancer observatory: cancer today [Internet] International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2020 (accessed January 21, 2021) Available from: https://gcoiarcfr/today/home.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Heitman SJ,
    2. Hilsden RJ,
    3. Au F,
    4. Dowden S,
    5. Manns BJ
    . Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North Americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Fitzpatrick-Lewis D,
    2. Ali MU,
    3. Warren R,
    4. Kenny M,
    5. Sherifali D,
    6. Raina P
    . Screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2016;15:298–313.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    Patient completion of screening tests [Internet] Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2019 (accessed January 21, 2021). Available from: https://focus.hqca.ca/primaryhealthcare/screening/.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Coldman A,
    2. Flanagan W,
    3. Nadeau C,
    4. et al
    . Projected effect of fecal immunochemical test threshold for colorectal cancer screening on outcomes and costs for Canada using the OncoSim microsimulation model, Journal of Cancer Policy. Journal of Cancer Policy 2017;13:38–46.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Rodríguez-Gómez M,
    2. Ruiz-Pérez I,
    3. Martín-Calderón S,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of patient-targeted interventions to increase cancer screening participation in rural areas: A systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2020;101:103401.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sabatino SA,
    2. Lawrence B,
    3. Elder R,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012;43:97–118.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Increasing colorectal cancer screening: multicomponent interventions. Finding and rationale statement [Internet] Community Preventive Task Force; 2016 (accessed January 30, 2021). Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/cancer-screening-multicomponent-interventions-colorectal-cancer.
  10. 10.↵
    Increasing colorectal cancer screening: multicomponent interventions [Internet] The Community Guide; 2017 (accessed January 15, 2021). Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/cancer-screening-multicomponent-interventions-colorectal-cancer.
  11. 11.↵
    1. Damschroder LJ,
    2. Aron DC,
    3. Keith RE,
    4. Kirsh SR,
    5. Alexander JA,
    6. Lowery JC
    . Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009;4:50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Cane J,
    2. O'Connor D,
    3. Michie S
    . Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci 2012;7:37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Michie S,
    2. van Stralen MM,
    3. West R
    . The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011;6:42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Liberati A,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Tetzlaff J,
    4. et al
    . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist [Internet]. CASP-UKnet; 2018 (accessed June 11, 2021). Available from: https://casp-uknet/casp-tools-checklists/.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Hong QPP,
    2. Fàbregues S,
    3. Bartlett G,
    4. et al
    . Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT8) [Internet]. Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada; 2018 (accessed June 11, 2021). Available from: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf.
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hempel S,
    2. Shekelle PG,
    3. Liu JL,
    4. et al
    . Development of the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS): a tool for critical appraisal of quality improvement intervention publications. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:796–804.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Popay J,
    2. Roberts H,
    3. Sowden A,
    4. et al
    . Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme version 1, b92 [Internet]. Lancaster University; 2006 (accessed January 30, 2021). Available from: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/media/lancaster-university/content-assets/documents/fhm/dhr/chir/NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.pdf.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Glasgow RE,
    2. Vogt TM,
    3. Boles SM
    . Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1322–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.↵
    1. Calanzani N,
    2. Cavers D,
    3. Vojt G,
    4. et al
    . Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016307.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Cole AM,
    2. Esplin A,
    3. Baldwin LM
    . Adaptation of an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening program using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Prev Chronic Dis 2015;12:E213.
    OpenUrl
  22. 22.↵
    1. Coronado GD,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Petrik A,
    4. et al
    . Implementation successes and challenges in participating in a pragmatic study to improve colon cancer screening: perspectives of health center leaders. Transl Behav Med 2017;7:557–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. 23.↵
    1. Davis MM,
    2. Gunn R,
    3. Pham R,
    4. et al
    . Key collaborative factors when Medicaid accountable care organizations work with primary care clinics to improve colorectal cancer screening: relationships, data, and quality improvement infrastructure. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E107.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Hannon PA,
    2. Maxwell AE,
    3. Escoffery C,
    4. et al
    . Adoption and implementation of evidence-based colorectal cancer screening interventions among cancer control program grantees, 2009-2015. Prev Chronic Dis 2019;16:E139.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Leeman J,
    2. Askelson N,
    3. Ko LK,
    4. et al
    . Understanding the processes that federally qualified health centers use to select and implement colorectal cancer screening interventions: a qualitative study. Transl Behav Med 2020;10:394–403.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Walsh JM,
    2. Gildengorin G,
    3. Green LW,
    4. Jenkins J,
    5. Potter MB
    . The FLU-FOBT Program in community clinics: durable benefits of a randomized controlled trial. Health Educ Res 2012;27:886–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Weiner BJ,
    2. Rohweder CL,
    3. Scott JE,
    4. et al
    . Using practice facilitation to increase rates of colorectal cancer screening in community health centers, North Carolina, 2012–2013:. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14:E66.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Baldwin LM,
    2. Schneider JL,
    3. Schwartz M,
    4. et al
    . First-year implementation of mailed FIT colorectal cancer screening programs in two Medicaid/Medicare health insurance plans: qualitative learnings from health plan quality improvement staff and leaders. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:132.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Cole AM,
    2. Tu SP,
    3. Fernandez ME,
    4. et al
    . Reported use of electronic health records to implement evidence-based approaches to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2015;26:1235–45.
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Bakhai S,
    2. Ahluwalia G,
    3. Nallapeta N,
    4. et al
    . Faecal immunochemical testing implementation to increase colorectal cancer screening in primary care. BMJ Open Qual 2018;7:e000400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Green BB,
    2. Fuller S,
    3. Anderson ML,
    4. et al
    . A quality improvement initiative to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening: collaboration between a primary care clinic and research team. J Fam Med 2017;4:1115.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Rubio-Valera M,
    2. Pons-Vigués M,
    3. Martínez-Andrés M,
    4. et al
    . Barriers and facilitators for the implementation of primary prevention and health promotion activities in primary care: a synthesis through meta-ethnography. PloS One 2014;9:e89554.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Seckler E,
    2. Regauer V,
    3. Rotter T,
    4. et al
    . Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract 2020;21:113.
    OpenUrl
  34. 34.↵
    1. Moore GF,
    2. Audrey S,
    3. Barker M,
    4. et al
    . Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Moore G,
    2. Audrey S,
    3. Barker M,
    4. et al
    . Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health 2014;68:101–2.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Proctor EK,
    2. Powell BJ,
    3. McMillen JC
    . Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting. Implement Sci 2013;8:139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Waltz TJ,
    3. Chinman MJ,
    4. et al
    . A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015;10:21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Proctor E,
    2. Silmere H,
    3. Raghavan R,
    4. et al
    . Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health 2011;38:65–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Gaglio B,
    2. Shoup JA,
    3. Glasgow RE
    . The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health 2013;103:e38–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Subramanian S,
    2. Hoover S,
    3. Tangka FKL,
    4. et al
    . A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program. Cancer 2018;124:4154–62.
    OpenUrl
  41. 41.↵
    1. Leeman J,
    2. Calancie L,
    3. Kegler MC,
    4. et al
    . Developing theory to guide building practitioners' capacity to implement evidence-based interventions. Health Educ Behav 2017;44:59–69.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Perry CK,
    2. Damschroder LJ,
    3. Hemler JR,
    4. et al
    . Specifying and comparing implementation strategies across seven large implementation interventions: a practical application of theory. Implement Sci 2019;14:32.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Campbell M,
    2. Fitzpatrick R,
    3. Haines A,
    4. et al
    . Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 2000;321:694–6.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Harvey G,
    2. Kitson A
    . PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci 2016;11:33
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Esmail R,
    2. Hanson HM,
    3. Holroyd-Leduc J,
    4. et al
    . A scoping review of full-spectrum knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks. Implement Sci 2020;15:11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Curran GM,
    2. Bauer M,
    3. Mittman B,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care 2012;50:217–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  47. 47.↵
    1. Mathieson A,
    2. Grande G,
    3. Luker K
    . Strategies, facilitators, and barriers to implementation of evidence-based practice in community nursing: a systematic mixed-studies review and qualitative synthesis. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2019;20:e6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Leeman J,
    2. Birken SA,
    3. Powell BJ,
    4. et al
    . Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice. Implement Sci 2017;12:125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    1. Powell BJ,
    2. Beidas RS,
    3. Lewis CC,
    4. et al
    . Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res 2017;44:177–94.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Jump to section

Keywords