Table 2. Description of Intervention, Effectiveness, and Cost by Awardee in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program Learning Collaborative^a .

Awardee and Implementation Site	Intervention	Time Frame	No. of Clinics	Increase in FIT Kits Returned or Screens Completed From Baselineb	No. of People Eligible for Intervention	Change in Overall FQHC Screening Uptake From Baseline to Implementation Period (Percentage-Point Increase)c	No. of People Screened Attributable to Intervention(s)d	Intervention Cost, $	Cost per Person Screened, $
1	Mailed FIT (supplemented with outreach activities to increase FIT uptake)	1 y	9	31.0% of FIT kits returned	5,178	52.2% to 59.3% (7.1)	1,607	30,148	18.76
2	Patient reminders	1 y	2	17.2% increase in FIT kits returned	541	15.4% to 42.1% (26.7)	93	6,897	74.16
3	Provider incentives	18 mo	9	27.6% more FIT screens than at baseline	Not availablee	51.9% to 56.8% (4.9)e	1,998	133,447	66.79
4	Provider reminder (supplemented by patient reminder and provider assessment and feedback)	21 mo	9	21.2% increase in screens	1,334	27.8% to 37.4% (9.6)	283	40,909	144.65
5	Multicomponent interventions that include patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback	1 y	1	Not available	1,858f	38.3% to 57.2% (18.9)	332	13,278	40.00
6	Multicomponent interventions that include patient and provider reminders and provider assessment and feedback	2 yg	9	Not available	8,626f	21.1% to 39.2% (18.1)	2,533	60,224	23.78
7	Multicomponent interventions that include patient reminders and provider assessment and feedback	3 y	4	Not available	4,771	25.7% to 35.4% (9.7)	943	27,497	29.16
8	Multicomponent interventions that include patient incentive, patient navigation, and patient reminders	13 mo	1	25.9% increase in FIT kit return rates	353	19.0% to 39.0% (20.0)	91	12,250	134.61

Abbreviations: FIT, fecal immunochemical test; FQHC, federally qualified health center.

^a The objective of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program Learning Collaborative is to work with awardees to analyze implementation, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the evidence-based interventions, supporting activities, and other interventions implemented by the awardees to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake (8,9).

^b Percentage increases in FIT kit return rates or selected CRC screens among people targeted by selected interventions implemented by the FQHC. Three FQHCs did not have this information because the interventions were not directly tracked, and only overall clinic CRC screening rate numerator and denominator were available to produce an overall CRC screening uptake.

^c The denominator for this rate was the entire cohort eligible for CRC screening at the FQHC.

^d The number of people screened was based on the percentage increase in screening that was attributable to the intervention in the 5 FQHCs. In the 3 FQHCs that did not have this information, the number of people screened was based on the overall change in the numbers screened in the FQHC (percentage-point increase is shown in Column 7).

^e The number of people screened was based on average differences in monthly screens during the baseline and implementation periods. Therefore, the number eligible cannot be directly calculated from the increase in screening rate and number screened.

^f Estimated number of eligible patients calculated based on baseline period. Estimate used as numerator and denominator can change because of changes in FQHC patient population.

^g Average across implementation years.