» Articles » PMID: 34556189

De-implementation and Substitution of Clinical Care Processes: Stakeholder Perspectives on the Transition to Primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening

Abstract

Background: New cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for women age 30-65 years. Healthcare organizations are preparing to de-implement the previous recommended strategies of Pap testing or co-testing (Pap plus HPV test) and substitute primary HPV testing. However, there may be significant challenges to the replacement of this entrenched clinical practice, even with an evidence-based substitution. We sought to identify stakeholder-perceived barriers and facilitators to this substitution within a large healthcare system, Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with clinician, administrative, and patient stakeholders regarding (a) acceptability and feasibility of the planned substitution; (b) perceptions of barriers and facilitators, with an emphasis on those related to the de-implementation/implementation cycle of substitution; and (c) perceived readiness to change. Our interview guide was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Using a team coding approach, we developed an initial coding structure refined during iterative analysis; the data were subsequently organized thematically into domains, key themes, and sub-themes using thematic analysis, followed by framework analysis informed by CFIR.

Results: We conducted 23 interviews: 5 patient and 18 clinical/administrative. Clinicians perceived that patients feel more tests equals better care, and clinicians and patients expressed fear of missed cancers ("…it'll be more challenging convincing the patient that only one test is…good enough to detect cancer."). Patients perceived practice changes resulting in "less care" are driven by the desire to cut costs. In contrast, clinicians/administrators viewed changing from two tests to one as acceptable and a workflow efficiency ("…It's very easy and half the work."). Stakeholder-recommended strategies included focusing on the increased efficacy of primary HPV testing and developing clinician talking points incorporating national guidelines to assuage "cost-cutting" fears.

Conclusions: Substitution to replace an entrenched clinical practice is complex. Leveraging available facilitators is key to ease the process for clinical and administrative stakeholders-e.g., emphasizing the efficiency of going from two tests to one. Identifying and addressing clinician and patient fears regarding cost-cutting and perceived poorer quality of care is critical for substitution. Multicomponent and multilevel strategies for engagement and education will be required.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, # NCT04371887.

Citing Articles

Cervical Cancer Screening: Patient Perspectives on Transitioning to Primary High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Testing Alone.

White L, Goldberg S, Escobar A, Hixon B, Chao C, Hahn E Perm J. 2024; 28(4):57-64.

PMID: 39444273 PMC: 11648333. DOI: 10.7812/TPP/24.076.


Patterns of Care Following a Positive Fecal Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer: A Mixed Methods Study.

Hahn E, Munoz-Plaza C, Jensen C, Ghai N, Pak K, Amundsen B J Gen Intern Med. 2024; 39(16):3205-3216.

PMID: 38771535 PMC: 11618562. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08764-0.


Unpacking overuse of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer to inform de-implementation strategies.

Skolarus T, Hawley S, Forman J, Sales A, Sparks J, Metreger T Implement Sci Commun. 2024; 5(1):37.

PMID: 38594740 PMC: 11005280. DOI: 10.1186/s43058-024-00576-x.


Perinatal Women's Views of Pharmacist-Delivered Perinatal Depression Screening: A Qualitative Study.

Pham L, Moles R, OReilly C, Carter S, Raynes-Greenow C, Chen T Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(23).

PMID: 36498368 PMC: 9738857. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192316295.


Clinician practices, knowledge, and attitudes regarding primary human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: A mixed-methods study in Indiana.

Rodriguez N, Brennan L, Claure L, Balian L, Kasting M, Champion V Prev Med Rep. 2022; 31:102070.

PMID: 36471770 PMC: 9719026. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.102070.


References
1.
Jansen E, Naber S, Aitken C, de Koning H, van Ballegooijen M, de Kok I . Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening based on first year results in the Netherlands: a modelling study. BJOG. 2020; 128(3):573-582. PMC: 7818441. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.16400. View

2.
Rocque G, Blayney D, Jahanzeb M, Knape A, Markham M, Pham T . Choosing Wisely in Oncology: Are We Ready For Value-Based Care?. J Oncol Pract. 2017; 13(11):e935-e943. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2016.019281. View

3.
Curran G, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne J, Stetler C . Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012; 50(3):217-26. PMC: 3731143. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. View

4.
Norton W, Chambers D . Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions. Implement Sci. 2020; 15(1):2. PMC: 6950868. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0960-9. View

5.
Patey A, Grimshaw J, Francis J . Changing behaviour, 'more or less': do implementation and de-implementation interventions include different behaviour change techniques?. Implement Sci. 2021; 16(1):20. PMC: 7905859. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-021-01089-0. View