Colorectal CancerRISCCNCT06133439
Rural Indiana Screening for Colorectal Cancer
A study testing Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Indiana University at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this implementation study is to support an evidence-based intervention to the improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates in rural Indiana. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 45 to 75 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colorectal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 11 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 3 Jan 2023to Dec 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 45 to 75 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All participants will be staff employed at the respective clinics. Patients will be age 45 to 75 and either male or female. Age limitations are necessary because colorectal cancer screening doesn't start until 45 and ends at 75.
Who cannot join
- Under surveillance (inherited familial syndromes),history of inflammatory bowel disease, and a previous adenomatous polyp, or previous colorectal cancer.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States1 site
Monroe Family Medicine (Adams Medical Group Monroe)
Monroe, Indiana, 46772
About this study
Official title: Implementing Evidence Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
The goal of this implementation study is to support an evidence-based intervention to the improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates in rural Indiana. The main questions the study aims to answer are:
- How does the implementation of an evidence based intervention to increase CRC screening in rural Indiana improve CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates, defined as completed screening episode?
- Will dose and type of implementation strategies contribute to differences in contextual factors and readiness as well as different levels of implementation outcomes (reach and implementation) in rural clinic?
- Will Contextual factors (innovation, recipient, inner and outer context) and implementation outcomes (reach, and implementation) vary with the levels of CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy following active implementation (effectiveness) and throughout maintenance compared to baseline (usual care)?
- What is the cost and budget impact of the deployment of implementation strategies and processes for rural clinics and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing and sustaining the CRC screening intervention?
Approach: Participating clinics tasks consist of mailing FIT kits, sending text messages, phone reminders, and the use of a Patient Navigator to initiate a screening episode with eligible patients who are 45-75 (and have no colonoscopy in the last 10 years or FIT in the last 12 months) as identified from medical records.
Read the detailed description
In Aim 1, the investigators will evaluate the ability of an implementation of an EBI to improve CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates, defined as completed screening episode (effectiveness) through implementation of an EBI for CRC screening in rural Indiana. The investigators hypothesize that a complete screening episode of CRC screening (FIT or screening colonoscopy), including diagnostic colonoscopy uptake following positive FIT, will be higher following implementation of an EBI and throughout maintenance compared to baseline (usual care). Resolution with diagnostic colonoscopy and repeat screening with FIT will be handled as exploratory outcomes.
In Aim 2, the investigators will evaluate the variation in contextual factors (innovation, recipient, inner and outer context), implementation strategies and implementation outcomes (reach and implementation) using mixed data (qualitative interviews and quantitative measures) to build implementation profiles of nine rural clinics.
In Aim 3, the investigators estimate the cost and budget impact of the deployment of implementation strategies and processes for rural clinics and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing and sustaining the CRC screening intervention.
Study Overview: The investigators will partner with the IRHA, a not-for-profit organization, that was founded in 1997 to meet the healthcare needs of rural residents including Medicare and Medicaid recipients in underserved areas in Indiana. Nine IRHA with CRC screening rates below the state average of 68% were selected.
Approach and Design: The EBI for CRC screening consists of mailing an opportunity for patients not up to date with CRC screening to obtain a colonoscopy, Cologuard or FIT kit. Patients are provided with an opportunity to talk to a patient navigator and select screening options. Risk status for colorectal cancer is assessed. To initiate a screening episode, screening eligible patients who are 45-75 (no colonoscopy in the last 10 years or FIT in the last 12 months) will be identified from medical records
A centralized PN will serve all clinics during implementation, but this role will transition to clinic staff during maintenance. The PN will provide support to patients making decisions about the correct CRC screening test, scheduling a screening colonoscopy, and follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy when an FIT is positive.43,57-71 A standard operating procedure (SOP) will be developed during planning to support the navigation protocol and the transition of the PN role to clinic staff during maintenance. Navigation may include further assessment or confirmation of risk status, discussion about CRC screening or scheduling of a screening colonoscopy. With verbal consent, all calls will be recorded. Using the SOP, clinic staff who have basic medical assistant training will be able to support navigation when the PN role is transitioned to the clinic. A fidelity checklist will be used to assess 25% of all recorded calls for consistency in delivering the navigation protocol.
A positive stool-based test will prompt a stepped approach to counseling for diagnostic colonoscopy.
Implementation Strategy: The implementation strategy includes four components: 1) external facilitation, 2) CC identification and preparation, 3) establishment of a collaborative learning environment and 4) promotion of local adaptation.
Implementation Process: Startup activities occur in Year 1 and include ordering materials and supplies, hiring and training staff, establishing monthly research team meetings and EAB meetings, refining data collection measures and meeting with consultants. Using input from clinic staff, the investigators will hire and train interviewers and establish processes for all data collection including computer interfaces and database management. A PN will be available in each clinic to counsel patients. During Phase 1, investigators will assess CRC screening rates and promotion/education activities to identify a baseline as well as determine costs associated with any currently implemented strategies. Phase 2 begins as each cluster is stepped into the implementation design. A CC will be selected at each clinic and a learning collective will be developed to inform and engage all clinic staff. Before developing a clinic-specific plan, the investigators will assess contextual factors by collecting data from clinic staff and patients to inform the implementation plan. Assessment of contextual factors will provide information about the evidence surrounding the EBI, motivation or self-efficacy of staff/patients for implementing the EBI and factors in the inner or outer context that would facilitate or present challenges to implementation.
Following assessment, the clinics will begin development of a plan to support the steps necessary to implement the EBI, including the need for resources such as technical support for EMR programming and development of computerized logs for use in tracking activities. The clinic-specific plan will be developed in partnership with the CC and clinic staff. The learning collaborative will inform the implementation plan development, educate staff about the implementation process, and identify areas where adaptations to the plan are needed. After planning, the clinics will execute the implementation plan. Computerized clinic logs will track all steps of implementing the intervention including FIT and Cologuard distribution and retrieval, scheduling, completion of colonoscopy (screening and diagnostic) and PN calls. During active implementation, both the EIS and CC will use tracking sheets to record all actions, and fidelity will be monitored monthly. Adaptations to the initial implementation plan will be carefully documented.
Phase 3 (Maintenance) follows active implementation and is used to monitor continued adoption of the EBI and subsequent CRC screening, including annual repeat FIT screening for those who completed an initial negative FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive FIT. Cost effectiveness of implementation will be measured.
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Being tested
- Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention
- Medical subject headings
- Colorectal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based interventionBehavioural
Mailed FIT kits, Cologuard, and diagnostic colonoscopies.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | No intervention | Usual care and planning period. |
| Phase 2 | Other | Implementation period.
Clinics are randomized into clusters Receives: Behavioral: Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention |
| Phase 3 | Other | Maintenance period. Receives: Behavioral: Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Effectiveness and Maintenance
The primary effectiveness measure will be the rate of uptake of a complete episode CRC screening, a rate that includes resolution of a positive FIT test with diagnostic colonoscopy.
Measured: Up to 12 months
Contextual factors
Contextual factors will be measured at the beginning of Phase 2 and during the midpoint and end of Phase 3. Semi structured items are used for contextual factors and are guided by the iPARIHS framework. The final contextual factor construct assessed during the interview will be readiness to engage in implementation of the EBI, measured by the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA).
Measured: Up to 12 months
Implementation outcomes
Measured by CC tracking forms, clinic logs that record all PN calls, adaptations to the implementation plan, fidelity measures and costs. The Clinic Implementation Tracking Form contains all essential tasks in the implementation plan including the dose and quality of intervention delivery. Overall quality of implementation and responsiveness to facilitation will be rated on a scale of 1 to 3. At the end of Phase 3, the investigators will interview two staff/clinic about their perceptions of the implementation. The investigators will also measure responses to a validated Acceptability scale using two staff/clinic at each clinic. All adaptations to the implementation plan will be recorded including rationale for change. Cost-data will be collected in phase 1 for usual care CRC screening promotion/education activities and throughout Phase 2 and 3 of implementation.
Measured: Up to 36 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted15 Nov 2023
- Study start3 Jan 2023
- Primary completionDec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Colorectal CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Indiana UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Model description
- Cluster-Randomized Stepped Wedge design. Clinics will be randomized to one of three clusters that include four defined phases each consisting of nine-month segments.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 11 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Indiana University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Victoria L. Champion, Indiana University
- Investigators
- Victoria Champion, PhD, Principal investigator, Indiana University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06133439
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 15956
- Other IDs
- R01CA276659
- Acronym
- RISCC
- Status last verified
- Apr 2026
- First submitted
- 6 Nov 2023
- Last updated
- 14 Apr 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Apr 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Implementing Evidence Based Colorectal Cancer Screening in Rural Clinics
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06133439
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- RISCC / 15956
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 11 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Indiana UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- National Cancer Institute (NCI)
- Study start
- 3 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 15 Nov 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this implementation study is to support an evidence-based intervention to the improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates in rural Indiana. The main questions the study aims to answer are:
- How does the implementation of an evidence based intervention to increase CRC screening in rural Indiana improve CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates, defined as completed screening episode?
- Will dose and type of implementation strategies contribute to differences in contextual factors and readiness as well as different levels of implementation outcomes (reach and implementation) in rural clinic?
- Will Contextual factors (innovation, recipient, inner and outer context) and implementation outcomes (reach, and implementation) vary with the levels of CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy following active implementation (effectiveness) and throughout maintenance compared to baseline (usual care)?
- What is the cost and budget impact of the deployment of implementation strategies and processes for rural clinics and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing and sustaining the CRC screening intervention?
Approach: Participating clinics tasks consist of mailing FIT kits, sending text messages, phone reminders, and the use of a Patient Navigator to initiate a screening episode with eligible patients who are 45-75 (and have no colonoscopy in the last 10 years or FIT in the last 12 months) as identified from medical records.
Detailed description
In Aim 1, the investigators will evaluate the ability of an implementation of an EBI to improve CRC screening and diagnostic colonoscopy rates, defined as completed screening episode (effectiveness) through implementation of an EBI for CRC screening in rural Indiana. The investigators hypothesize that a complete screening episode of CRC screening (FIT or screening colonoscopy), including diagnostic colonoscopy uptake following positive FIT, will be higher following implementation of an EBI and throughout maintenance compared to baseline (usual care). Resolution with diagnostic colonoscopy and repeat screening with FIT will be handled as exploratory outcomes.
In Aim 2, the investigators will evaluate the variation in contextual factors (innovation, recipient, inner and outer context), implementation strategies and implementation outcomes (reach and implementation) using mixed data (qualitative interviews and quantitative measures) to build implementation profiles of nine rural clinics.
In Aim 3, the investigators estimate the cost and budget impact of the deployment of implementation strategies and processes for rural clinics and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of implementing and sustaining the CRC screening intervention.
Study Overview: The investigators will partner with the IRHA, a not-for-profit organization, that was founded in 1997 to meet the healthcare needs of rural residents including Medicare and Medicaid recipients in underserved areas in Indiana. Nine IRHA with CRC screening rates below the state average of 68% were selected.
Approach and Design: The EBI for CRC screening consists of mailing an opportunity for patients not up to date with CRC screening to obtain a colonoscopy, Cologuard or FIT kit. Patients are provided with an opportunity to talk to a patient navigator and select screening options. Risk status for colorectal cancer is assessed. To initiate a screening episode, screening eligible patients who are 45-75 (no colonoscopy in the last 10 years or FIT in the last 12 months) will be identified from medical records
A centralized PN will serve all clinics during implementation, but this role will transition to clinic staff during maintenance. The PN will provide support to patients making decisions about the correct CRC screening test, scheduling a screening colonoscopy, and follow-up with a diagnostic colonoscopy when an FIT is positive.43,57-71 A standard operating procedure (SOP) will be developed during planning to support the navigation protocol and the transition of the PN role to clinic staff during maintenance. Navigation may include further assessment or confirmation of risk status, discussion about CRC screening or scheduling of a screening colonoscopy. With verbal consent, all calls will be recorded. Using the SOP, clinic staff who have basic medical assistant training will be able to support navigation when the PN role is transitioned to the clinic. A fidelity checklist will be used to assess 25% of all recorded calls for consistency in delivering the navigation protocol.
A positive stool-based test will prompt a stepped approach to counseling for diagnostic colonoscopy.
Implementation Strategy: The implementation strategy includes four components: 1) external facilitation, 2) CC identification and preparation, 3) establishment of a collaborative learning environment and 4) promotion of local adaptation.
Implementation Process: Startup activities occur in Year 1 and include ordering materials and supplies, hiring and training staff, establishing monthly research team meetings and EAB meetings, refining data collection measures and meeting with consultants. Using input from clinic staff, the investigators will hire and train interviewers and establish processes for all data collection including computer interfaces and database management. A PN will be available in each clinic to counsel patients. During Phase 1, investigators will assess CRC screening rates and promotion/education activities to identify a baseline as well as determine costs associated with any currently implemented strategies. Phase 2 begins as each cluster is stepped into the implementation design. A CC will be selected at each clinic and a learning collective will be developed to inform and engage all clinic staff. Before developing a clinic-specific plan, the investigators will assess contextual factors by collecting data from clinic staff and patients to inform the implementation plan. Assessment of contextual factors will provide information about the evidence surrounding the EBI, motivation or self-efficacy of staff/patients for implementing the EBI and factors in the inner or outer context that would facilitate or present challenges to implementation.
Following assessment, the clinics will begin development of a plan to support the steps necessary to implement the EBI, including the need for resources such as technical support for EMR programming and development of computerized logs for use in tracking activities. The clinic-specific plan will be developed in partnership with the CC and clinic staff. The learning collaborative will inform the implementation plan development, educate staff about the implementation process, and identify areas where adaptations to the plan are needed. After planning, the clinics will execute the implementation plan. Computerized clinic logs will track all steps of implementing the intervention including FIT and Cologuard distribution and retrieval, scheduling, completion of colonoscopy (screening and diagnostic) and PN calls. During active implementation, both the EIS and CC will use tracking sheets to record all actions, and fidelity will be monitored monthly. Adaptations to the initial implementation plan will be carefully documented.
Phase 3 (Maintenance) follows active implementation and is used to monitor continued adoption of the EBI and subsequent CRC screening, including annual repeat FIT screening for those who completed an initial negative FIT and diagnostic colonoscopy following a positive FIT. Cost effectiveness of implementation will be measured.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Cluster-Randomized Stepped Wedge design. Clinics will be randomized to one of three clusters that include four defined phases each consisting of nine-month segments.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | No intervention | –Usual care and planning period. |
| Phase 2 | Other | Behavioral: Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based interventionImplementation period. Clinics are randomized into clusters |
| Phase 3 | Other | Behavioral: Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based interventionMaintenance period. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 45 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All participants will be staff employed at the respective clinics. Patients will be age 45 to 75 and either male or female. Age limitations are necessary because colorectal cancer screening doesn't start until 45 and ends at 75.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Under surveillance (inherited familial syndromes),history of inflammatory bowel disease, and a previous adenomatous polyp, or previous colorectal cancer.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based interventionMailed FIT kits, Cologuard, and diagnostic colonoscopies. | Behavioural | Phase 2, Phase 3 |
Primary outcome
Effectiveness and Maintenance
Time frame: Up to 12 months
The primary effectiveness measure will be the rate of uptake of a complete episode CRC screening, a rate that includes resolution of a positive FIT test with diagnostic colonoscopy.
Contextual factors
Time frame: Up to 12 months
Contextual factors will be measured at the beginning of Phase 2 and during the midpoint and end of Phase 3. Semi structured items are used for contextual factors and are guided by the iPARIHS framework. The final contextual factor construct assessed during the interview will be readiness to engage in implementation of the EBI, measured by the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA).
Implementation outcomes
Time frame: Up to 36 months
Measured by CC tracking forms, clinic logs that record all PN calls, adaptations to the implementation plan, fidelity measures and costs. The Clinic Implementation Tracking Form contains all essential tasks in the implementation plan including the dose and quality of intervention delivery. Overall quality of implementation and responsiveness to facilitation will be rated on a scale of 1 to 3. At the end of Phase 3, the investigators will interview two staff/clinic about their perceptions of the implementation. The investigators will also measure responses to a validated Acceptability scale using two staff/clinic at each clinic. All adaptations to the implementation plan will be recorded including rationale for change. Cost-data will be collected in phase 1 for usual care CRC screening promotion/education activities and throughout Phase 2 and 3 of implementation.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Apr 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Colorectal Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingObservational study
Pre- and On-treatment Multi-omics Profiling of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Rectal Neoplasms
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
RecruitingPhase 2
Tislelizumab in People With Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Victoria Champion, PhD principal investigator
Indiana University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Colorectal Screen rates with implementation of evidence-based intervention in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Indiana University at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Apr 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Effectiveness and Maintenance (time frame: Up to 12 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Apr 2026.