• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

影响社区卫生中心结直肠癌筛查改善计划实施的因素:组态比较方法的应用。

Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods.

机构信息

Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR, USA.

Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Nov;35(Suppl 2):815-822. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06186-2. Epub 2020 Oct 26.

DOI:10.1007/s11606-020-06186-2
PMID:33107003
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7652967/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based programs such as mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach can only affect health outcomes if they can be successfully implemented. However, attempts to implement programs are often limited by organizational-level factors.

OBJECTIVES

As part of the Strategies and Opportunities to Stop Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC) pragmatic trial, we evaluated how organizational factors impacted the extent to which health centers implemented a mailed FIT outreach program.

DESIGN

Eight health centers participated in STOP CRC. The intervention consisted of customized electronic health record tools and clinical staff training to facilitate mailing of an introduction letter, FIT kit, and reminder letter. Health centers had flexibility in how they delivered the program.

MAIN MEASURES

We categorized the health centers' level of implementation based on the proportion of eligible patients who were mailed a FIT kit, and applied configurational comparative methods to identify combinations of relevant organizational-level and program-level factors that distinguished among high, medium, and low implementing health centers. The factors were categorized according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research model.

KEY RESULTS

FIT tests were mailed to 21.0-81.7% of eligible participants at each health center. We identified a two-factor solution that distinguished among levels of implementation with 100% consistency and 100% coverage. The factors were having a centralized implementation team (inner setting) and mailing the introduction letter in advance of the FIT kit (intervention characteristics). Health centers with high levels of implementation had the joint presence of both factors. In health centers with medium levels of implementation, only one factor was present. Health centers with low levels of implementation had neither factor present.

CONCLUSIONS

Full implementation of the STOP CRC intervention relied on a centralized implementation team with dedicated staffing time, and the advance mailing of an introduction letter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742065 Registered 05 December 2012-Prospectively registered.

摘要

背景

基于证据的项目,如邮寄粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)外展,如果能够成功实施,才能对健康结果产生影响。然而,实施这些项目的尝试往往受到组织层面因素的限制。

目的

作为策略和机会以停止优先人群结直肠癌(STOP CRC)实用试验的一部分,我们评估了组织因素如何影响卫生中心实施邮寄 FIT 外展计划的程度。

设计

八家卫生中心参与了 STOP CRC。干预措施包括定制的电子健康记录工具和临床工作人员培训,以促进邮寄介绍信、FIT 试剂盒和提醒信。卫生中心在提供该计划方面具有灵活性。

主要措施

我们根据邮寄 FIT 试剂盒的合格患者比例对卫生中心的实施程度进行分类,并应用配置比较方法来识别区分高、中、低实施卫生中心的相关组织层面和计划层面因素的组合。这些因素根据实施研究综合框架模型进行分类。

主要结果

每个卫生中心的合格参与者中,有 21.0-81.7%的人收到了 FIT 测试。我们确定了一个能够区分实施水平的两因素解决方案,一致性为 100%,覆盖率为 100%。这两个因素分别是拥有集中的实施团队(内部环境)和在 FIT 试剂盒之前提前邮寄介绍信(干预特征)。实施水平较高的卫生中心同时存在这两个因素。在实施水平中等的卫生中心中,仅存在一个因素。实施水平较低的卫生中心均不存在这两个因素。

结论

STOP CRC 干预措施的全面实施依赖于一个拥有专门人员配备时间的集中实施团队,以及提前邮寄介绍信。

试验注册

ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT01742065 于 2012 年 12 月 5 日注册-前瞻性注册。

相似文献

1
Factors Influencing Implementation of a Colorectal Cancer Screening Improvement Program in Community Health Centers: an Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods.影响社区卫生中心结直肠癌筛查改善计划实施的因素:组态比较方法的应用。
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Nov;35(Suppl 2):815-822. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06186-2. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
2
Effectiveness of a Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach Program in Community Health Clinics: The STOP CRC Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.社区健康诊所中邮寄式结直肠癌筛查推广项目的效果:STOP CRC 整群随机临床试验
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Sep 1;178(9):1174-1181. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3629.
3
Effect of Patient Portal Messaging Before Mailing Fecal Immunochemical Test Kit on Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.患者门户消息传递对邮寄粪便免疫化学检测试剂盒前后对结直肠癌筛查率的影响:一项随机临床试验。
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2146863. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.46863.
4
Direct-to-member mailed colorectal cancer screening outreach for Medicaid and Medicare enrollees: Implementation and effectiveness outcomes from the BeneFIT study.针对医疗补助计划和医疗保险参保人的直接向成员邮寄的结直肠癌筛查外展活动:BeneFIT 研究的实施和效果结果。
Cancer. 2020 Feb 1;126(3):540-548. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32567. Epub 2019 Oct 28.
5
Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State.华盛顿州联邦合格健康中心实施的多层结直肠癌筛查推广干预措施的效果和成本。
Cancer. 2018 Nov 1;124(21):4121-4129. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31693. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
6
Moderators of the effectiveness of an intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening through mailed fecal immunochemical test kits: results from a pragmatic randomized trial.通过邮寄粪便免疫化学检测试剂盒增加结直肠癌筛查效果的干预措施的调节因素:一项实用随机试验的结果。
Trials. 2020 Jan 15;21(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-4027-7.
7
Clinic Factors Associated With Mailed Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Completion: The Difference-Making Role of Support Staff.与邮寄粪便免疫化学检测 (FIT) 完成相关的临床因素:支持人员的重要作用。
Ann Fam Med. 2022 Mar-Apr;20(2):123-129. doi: 10.1370/afm.2772.
8
Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.邮寄粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)外展后,新纳入的 45-49 岁社区卫生中心人群中结直肠癌筛查的参与情况。
Cancer Causes Control. 2023 Dec;34(Suppl 1):125-133. doi: 10.1007/s10552-023-01717-8. Epub 2023 Jun 10.
9
Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.将计划-执行-研究-行动(PDSA)方法应用于一项涉及安全网诊所的大型实用性研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 19;17(1):411. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2364-3.
10
Using a continuum of hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies to put research-tested colorectal screening interventions into practice.利用混合有效性-实施研究的连续体将经过研究检验的结直肠癌筛查干预措施付诸实践。
Implement Sci. 2019 May 29;14(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0903-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Difference-making factors for successful implementation of a multicomponent colorectal cancer screening program in rural clinics (SMARTER CRC).农村诊所成功实施多组分结直肠癌筛查项目(SMARTER CRC)的影响因素
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jun 25;12:1522738. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1522738. eCollection 2025.
2
Diagnostic safety and quality optimization in sepsis study protocol.脓毒症研究方案中的诊断安全性与质量优化
J Hosp Med. 2025 Jul;20(7):800-807. doi: 10.1002/jhm.70052. Epub 2025 Apr 13.
3
The difference-making role of staff support in implementing nurse care management for opioid use disorder treatment: A configurational analysis.员工支持在实施阿片类药物使用障碍治疗的护士护理管理中的差异作用:构型分析
J Subst Use Addict Treat. 2025 May;172:209642. doi: 10.1016/j.josat.2025.209642. Epub 2025 Feb 15.
4
Organizational readiness for implementation: a qualitative assessment to explain survey responses.实施的组织准备情况:一项用于解释调查回复的定性评估。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12149-8.
5
Barriers and proposed solutions to at-home colorectal cancer screening tests in medically underserved health centers across three US regions to inform a randomized trial.在美国三个地区的医疗服务不足的健康中心进行家庭结直肠癌筛查检测的障碍和建议解决方案,为一项随机试验提供信息。
Cancer Med. 2024 Aug;13(15):e70040. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70040.
6
Reducing sickness absence among public-sector healthcare employees: the difference-making roles of managerial and employee participation.减少公共部门医疗保健员工的病假缺勤:管理和员工参与的决定性作用。
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2024 Apr;97(3):341-351. doi: 10.1007/s00420-024-02048-0. Epub 2024 Feb 27.
7
Factors Affecting Post-trial Sustainment or De-implementation of Study Interventions: A Narrative Review.影响研究干预措施试验后维持或撤销的因素:一项叙述性综述
J Gen Intern Med. 2024 May;39(6):1029-1036. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08593-7. Epub 2024 Jan 12.
8
Methods for scaling up an outreach intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in rural areas.扩大外展干预以提高农村地区结直肠癌筛查率的方法。
Implement Sci Commun. 2024 Jan 8;5(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00540-1.
9
Difference-Making Pathways to Frailty Through Social Factors: A Configurational Analysis.社会因素导致虚弱的差异化途径:一种组态分析。
Gerontologist. 2024 Jun 1;64(6). doi: 10.1093/geront/gnad173.
10
The role of organizational capacity in intervention efficacy in a church-based cancer education program: A configurational analysis.组织能力在基于教会的癌症教育项目干预效果中的作用:一种组态分析
Glob Implement Res Appl. 2023 Sep;3(3):284-294. doi: 10.1007/s43477-023-00089-0. Epub 2023 Jun 11.

本文引用的文献

1
Identifying the Implementation Conditions Associated With Positive Outcomes in a Successful Nursing Facility Demonstration Project.确定与成功的护理机构示范项目的积极成果相关的实施条件。
Gerontologist. 2020 Nov 23;60(8):1566-1574. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnaa041.
2
Strategy Configurations Directly Linked to Higher Hepatitis C Virus Treatment Starts: An Applied Use of Configurational Comparative Methods.策略配置与更高的丙型肝炎病毒治疗启动直接相关:配置比较方法的应用。
Med Care. 2020 May;58(5):e31-e38. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001319.
3
School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: a mixed methods systematic review.针对儿童和青少年哮喘的校本自我管理干预措施:一项混合方法的系统评价
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 28;1(1):CD011651. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011651.pub2.
4
Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Mixed-Method Tool for Complex Implementation Questions.定性比较分析:一种用于复杂实施问题的混合方法工具。
J Prim Prev. 2019 Feb;40(1):69-87. doi: 10.1007/s10935-019-00536-5.
5
Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations.混合方法评估的创新。
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:423-442. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040218-044215. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
6
Two Medicaid health plans' models and motivations for improving colorectal cancer screening rates.两家医疗补助健康计划提高结直肠癌筛查率的模式与动机。
Transl Behav Med. 2020 Feb 3;10(1):68-77. doi: 10.1093/tbm/iby094.
7
Population health interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical tests: A systematic review.人群健康干预措施以改善粪便免疫化学试验筛查结直肠癌:系统评价。
Prev Med. 2019 Jan;118:113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.021. Epub 2018 Oct 24.
8
Identifying optimal approaches to implement colorectal cancer screening through participation in a learning laboratory.通过参与一个学习实验室来确定实施结直肠癌筛查的最佳方法。
Cancer. 2018 Nov 1;124(21):4118-4120. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31679. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
9
Effectiveness and cost of multilayered colorectal cancer screening promotion interventions at federally qualified health centers in Washington State.华盛顿州联邦合格健康中心实施的多层结直肠癌筛查推广干预措施的效果和成本。
Cancer. 2018 Nov 1;124(21):4121-4129. doi: 10.1002/cncr.31693. Epub 2018 Oct 25.
10
Evaluation of Interventions Intended to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.评估旨在提高美国结直肠癌筛查率的干预措施:系统评价和荟萃分析。
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Dec 1;178(12):1645-1658. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637.