Eliminating Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening Using Rapid Cycle Testing: A Pilot Study
NCT ID: NCT05524428
Last Updated: 2025-11-14
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
2 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2023-03-24
2026-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Overview: The investigators will characterize the population in these age groups in order to understand resources needed to screen patients at age 50 and to expand screening to the USPSTF's draft guideline if passed.
Setting: The investigators will select 4 CHCs with distinctly diverse populations for Aim 1 and Aim 2.
Approach: The investigators will examine data from the EHR and the DRVS platform to determine: (1) the size and demographics of the three age groups; (2) the frequency in which this population presents to the CHC for primary care and other visits; and (3) current screening initiation patterns. Based on the findings of the investigator's initial evaluation, the investigators will estimate the additional colorectal cancer screening tests that will be required to screen this population promptly at age 50 and the additional resources that will be needed at each health center to meet this need. The investigators will also estimate the impact of a lower age of screening initiation. Analysis will be stratified by race/ethnicity, gender, age and insurance status to assess for any disparities that might be present.
Data Collection and Management: The DRVS population management platform provides the data needed to evaluate Aim 1. The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) data management team will pull the data needed for the participating CHCs, once selected. The investigators have existing data use agreements that will be amended for this specific project. Data flows and management procedures have already been established and will serve to expedite this study.
Aim 2: Conduct focus groups with key personnel to identify barriers and facilitators to screening in 4 different health centers with uniquely diverse populations.
Overview: The investigators will conduct focus groups to understand barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening including perceptions around the change in screening age, attitudes about specific strategies to facilitate colorectal cancer screening (e.g. use of technological-based solutions to prompt screening, task shifting with integration of medical assistants into the screening process), proposed strategies to improve screening at the health center, and other likely barriers and facilitators.
Approach: The investigators will conduct focus groups with key personnel at the 4 participating health centers. The investigators will include an administrative leader and population health managers, data analysts and quality improvement staff, as well as nurse/practice managers, medical assistants, and providers (MD, NP, and/or PA). Focus groups will address: (1) barriers and facilitators to timely screening initiation; (2) perceptions around using technological solutions to prompt colorectal cancer screening; and (3) perceptions about task-shifting with integration of the medical assistants into the colorectal cancer screening process. Distinct barriers and facilitators/determinants will be identified at the patient, provider and system-level. These determinants will be prioritized (high, medium, low) based on number of times referenced in the interviews.
Data Analysis: Focus group data will be analyzed to identify key themes related to barriers and facilitators to screening.
Outcomes: The outcome of this aim will be identified barriers and facilitators to colorectal cancer screening at health centers with a key focus on understanding perceptions around utilization of technological solutions (e.g. pre-existing text message platforms at health centers, electronic registries) and integration of the medical assistants into the CRC screening workflow.
Aim 3: Develop and test intervention components to anticipate and address barriers and facilitators at the patient, provider and system-level using rapid cycle methods.
Overview: We will identify implementation strategies at patient, provider and systems-levels and match to identified Aim 2 barriers and facilitators, use design probes to understand the workflows and preconditions for implementation strategies, and individually test strategies using rapid cycle methods.
Approach:
* Development of Implementation Strategies: High ranking barriers from Aim 2 will be matched with implementation strategies that are most likely to influence implementation outcomes. A minimum of 2 implementation strategies will be developed at each level. When identifying strategies, we will consider the: (1) implementation strategy; (2) mechanism in which the strategy impacts the identified determinant (3) the determinant; (4) moderators that may influence the impact of the strategy; (5) the preconditions necessary for successful implementation; and (6) implementation outcomes affected.
* Design Probes: We will conduct design probes to understand the culture, climate and preconditions to implementation at each health center. We will use design probes to further understand the day-to-day workings at the health center and workflows. We will further tailor our implementation strategies based on additional barriers and facilitators that are identified from design probes.
* Rapid Cycle Testing: Individual strategies will be tested using single case experimental design (SCED). In SCED each subject serves as their own control, an intervention is systematically introduced and withdrawn, and the effects of the intervention are measured. For our study each CHC will serve as a separate subject. We will conduct a series of single case experiments at each CHC using component analysis to rapidly test and optimize our strategies. Component analysis allows researchers to assess several interventions or components of an intervention individually or as a treatment package in multiple assessments. A minimum of 2 strategies at each level (patient, provider, system) will be tested at each clinic site. For example, a patient-level strategy might include text messaging to patients, which is enabled by the DRVS platform. We might test whether single or multiple text messages around a patient's birthday can prompt screening uptake, or if messages prior to a health care visit increases uptake of screening offered. An example at the provider-level might include the impact of a motivational training if staff identify difficulty motivating patients as a barrier. A systems-level strategy might include incorporating CRC screening into the workflows of the health center using the medical assistants, if provider time limitations are identified as a barrier.
* Post-Implementation Survey: When implementation testing ends, our team will send out a survey to any CHC staff member (administrative leader and population health managers, data analysts and quality improvement staff, as well as nurse/practice manager, medical assistant, and provider \[MD, NP, and/or PA\]) involved with the implementation of strategies at the health center level, and the survey information we will collect will assess perceptions on feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of the implementation strategy used.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Keywords
Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
SEQUENTIAL
SCREENING
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Introduction of Implementation Strategies
The investigators will determine the best intervention and strategy (and thus implementers) based on high ranking barriers/facilitators identified in focus groups. A minimum of 2 implementation strategies will be developed and implemented at each level (patient, provider, system) at each site that considers (1) implementation strategy; (2) mechanism in which the strategy impacts the identified determinant (3) the determinant; (4) moderators that may influence the impact of the strategy; (5) the preconditions necessary for successful implementation; and (6) implementation outcomes affected. Each community health center (CHC) will serve as its own separate subject, and individual strategies will be tested using single case experimental design (SCED) at each CHC using component analysis to rapidly test and optimize our strategies. In SCED each subject serves as their own control, an intervention is systematically introduced and withdrawn, and the effects of the intervention are measured.
Implementation Science Strategy
The investigators will be conducting focus groups and identifying barriers and facilitators, and the investigators will be matching identified barriers and facilitators to implementation strategies at the patient, provider, and system level which the investigators will be testing using rapid-cycle methods.
Withdrawal of Implementation Strategies
In SCED each subject serves as their own control, an intervention is systematically introduced and withdrawn, and the effects of the intervention are measured.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Implementation Science Strategy
The investigators will be conducting focus groups and identifying barriers and facilitators, and the investigators will be matching identified barriers and facilitators to implementation strategies at the patient, provider, and system level which the investigators will be testing using rapid-cycle methods.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Staff members at partnering sites ages 18+.
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
ALL
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
NIH
Massachusetts General Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa, M.D.
Gastroenterologist // Instructor of Medicine
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Adjoa Anyane-Yeboa, MD, MPH
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Mass General Hospital // Harvard Medical School
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Codman Square Health Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Brockton Neighborhood Health Center
Brockton, Massachusetts, United States
East Boston Neighborhood Health Center
East Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Duffy Health Center
Hyannis, Massachusetts, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Stephen Tringale, MD
Role: primary
Madhur Kuckreja, MD
Role: primary
Heidi Emerson, PhD
Role: primary
Lisa Jones, MD
Role: primary
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Roundtable NCC. Data & Progress. National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable; 2020.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Goding Sauer A, Fedewa SA, Butterly LF, Anderson JC, Cercek A, Smith RA, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 May;70(3):145-164. doi: 10.3322/caac.21601. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Anderson WF, Miller KD, Ma J, Rosenberg PS, Jemal A. Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974-2013. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Aug 1;109(8):djw322. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw322.
Roundtable NC. American Cancer Society. Accessed November 5, 2020, https://nccrt.org/what-we-do/80-percentby-2018/
Ahnen DJ, Wade SW, Jones WF, Sifri R, Mendoza Silveiras J, Greenamyer J, Guiffre S, Axilbund J, Spiegel A, You YN. The increasing incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer: a call to action. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014 Feb;89(2):216-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2013.09.006. Epub 2014 Jan 4.
Wolf AMD, Fontham ETH, Church TR, Flowers CR, Guerra CE, LaMonte SJ, Etzioni R, McKenna MT, Oeffinger KC, Shih YT, Walter LC, Andrews KS, Brawley OW, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Siegel RL, Wender RC, Smith RA. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Jul;68(4):250-281. doi: 10.3322/caac.21457. Epub 2018 May 30.
Force USPST. Draft Recommendation Statement: Colorectal Cancer Screening. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; 2020.
Brown T, Lee JY, Park J, Nelson CA, McBurnie MA, Liss DT, Kaleba EO, Henley E, Harigopal P, Grant L, Crawford P, Carroll JE, Alperovitz-Bichell K, Baker DW. Colorectal cancer screening at community health centers: A survey of clinicians' attitudes, practices, and perceived barriers. Prev Med Rep. 2015 Sep 21;2:886-91. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.09.003. eCollection 2015.
Lasser KE, Ayanian JZ, Fletcher RH, Good MJ. Barriers to colorectal cancer screening in community health centers: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2008 Feb 27;9:15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-9-15.
O'Malley AS, Beaton E, Yabroff KR, Abramson R, Mandelblatt J. Patient and provider barriers to colorectal cancer screening in the primary care safety-net. Prev Med. 2004 Jul;39(1):56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.022.
Matthews BA, Anderson RC, Nattinger AB. Colorectal cancer screening behavior and health insurance status (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Aug;16(6):735-42. doi: 10.1007/s10552-005-1228-z.
Dallery J, Raiff BR. Optimizing behavioral health interventions with single-case designs: from development to dissemination. Transl Behav Med. 2014 Sep;4(3):290-303. doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0258-z.
Ward-Horner J, Sturmey P. Component analyses using single-subject experimental designs: a review. J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Winter;43(4):685-704. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-685.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
22167
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id