Patient preferences for the design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program

Purpose: To assess preferences for design of a pharmacy-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program (PharmFIT™) among screening-eligible adults in the United States (US) and explore the impact of rurality on pharmacy use patterns (e.g., pharmacy type, prescription pick-up preference, service quality rating). Methods: We conducted a national online survey of non-institutionalized US adults through panels managed by Qualtrics, a survey research company. A total of 1,045 adults (response rate 62%) completed the survey between March and April 2021. Sampling quotas matched respondents to the 2010 US Census and oversampled rural residents. We assessed pharmacy use patterns by rurality and design preferences for learning about PharmFIT™; receiving a FIT kit from a pharmacy; and completing and returning the FIT kit. Results: Pharmacy use patterns varied, with some notable differences across rurality. Rural respondents used local, independently owned pharmacies more than non-rural respondents (20.4%, 6.3%, p < 0.001) and rated pharmacy service quality higher than non-rural respondents. Non-rural respondents preferred digital communication to learn about PharmFIT™ (36% vs 47%; p < 0.001) as well as digital FIT counseling (41% vs 49%; p = 0.02) more frequently than rural participants. Preferences for receiving and returning FITs were associated with pharmacy use patterns: respondents who pick up prescriptions in-person preferred to get their FIT (OR 7.7; 5.3–11.2) and return it in-person at the pharmacy (OR 1.7; 1.1–2.4). Conclusion: Pharmacies are highly accessible and could be useful for expanding access to CRC screening services. Local context and pharmacy use patterns should be considered in the design and implementation of PharmFIT™

Safety and efficacy of tenecteplase in patients with wake-up stroke assessed by non-contrast CT (TWIST): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Current evidence supports the use of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in patients with wake-up stroke selected with MRI or perfusion imaging and is recommended in clinical guidelines. However, access to advanced imaging techniques is often scarce. We aimed to determine whether thrombolytic treatment with intravenous tenecteplase given within 4·5 h of awakening improves functional outcome in patients with ischaemic wake-up stroke selected using non-contrast CT. Methods: TWIST was an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial with blinded endpoint assessment, conducted at 77 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older with acute ischaemic stroke symptoms upon awakening, limb weakness, a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 3 or higher or aphasia, a non-contrast CT examination of the head, and the ability to receive tenecteplase within 4·5 h of awakening. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either a single intravenous bolus of tenecteplase 0·25 mg per kg of bodyweight (maximum 25 mg) or control (no thrombolysis) using a central, web-based, computer-generated randomisation schedule. Trained research personnel, who conducted telephone interviews at 90 days (follow-up), were masked to treatment allocation. Clinical assessments were performed on day 1 (at baseline) and day 7 of hospital admission (or at discharge, whichever occurred first). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days and analysed using ordinal logistic regression in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2014–000096–80), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03181360), and ISRCTN (10601890). Findings: From June 12, 2017, to Sept 30, 2021, 578 of the required 600 patients were enrolled (288 randomly assigned to the tenecteplase group and 290 to the control group [intention-to-treat population]). The median age of participants was 73·7 years (IQR 65·9–81·1). 332 (57%) of 578 participants were male and 246 (43%) were female. Treatment with tenecteplase was not associated with better functional outcome, according to mRS score at 90 days (adjusted OR 1·18, 95% CI 0·88–1·58; p=0·27). Mortality at 90 days did not significantly differ between treatment groups (28 [10%] patients in the tenecteplase group and 23 [8%] in the control group; adjusted HR 1·29, 95% CI 0·74–2·26; p=0·37). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in six (2%) patients in the tenecteplase group versus three (1%) in the control group (adjusted OR 2·17, 95% CI 0·53–8·87; p=0·28), whereas any intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (11%) versus 30 (10%) patients (adjusted OR 1·14, 0·67–1·94; p=0·64). Interpretation: In patients with wake-up stroke selected with non-contrast CT, treatment with tenecteplase was not associated with better functional outcome at 90 days. The number of symptomatic haemorrhages and any intracranial haemorrhages in both treatment groups was similar to findings from previous trials of wake-up stroke patients selected using advanced imaging. Current evidence does not support treatment with tenecteplase in patients selected with non-contrast CT. Funding: Norwegian Clinical Research Therapy in the Specialist Health Services Programme, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the British Heart Foundation, and the Norwegian National Association for Public Health

Criteria for selecting implementation science theories and frameworks: results from an international survey

Abstract Background Theories provide a synthesizing architecture for implementation science. The underuse, superficial use, and misuse of theories pose a substantial scientific challenge for implementation science and may relate to challenges in selecting from the many theories in the field. Implementation scientists may benefit from guidance for selecting a theory for a specific study or project. Understanding how implementation scientists select theories will help inform efforts to develop such guidance. Our objective was to identify which theories implementation scientists use, how they use theories, and the criteria used to select theories. Methods We identified initial lists of uses and criteria for selecting implementation theories based on seminal articles and an iterative consensus process. We incorporated these lists into a self-administered survey for completion by self-identified implementation scientists. We recruited potential respondents at the 8th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation in Health and via several international email lists. We used frequencies and percentages to report results. Results Two hundred twenty-three implementation scientists from 12 countries responded to the survey. They reported using more than 100 different theories spanning several disciplines. Respondents reported using theories primarily to identify implementation determinants, inform data collection, enhance conceptual clarity, and guide implementation planning. Of the 19 criteria presented in the survey, the criteria used by the most respondents to select theory included analytic level (58%), logical consistency/plausibility (56%), empirical support (53%), and description of a change process (54%). The criteria used by the fewest respondents included fecundity (10%), uniqueness (12%), and falsifiability (15%). Conclusions Implementation scientists use a large number of criteria to select theories, but there is little consensus on which are most important. Our results suggest that the selection of implementation theories is often haphazard or driven by convenience or prior exposure. Variation in approaches to selecting theory warn against prescriptive guidance for theory selection. Instead, implementation scientists may benefit from considering the criteria that we propose in this paper and using them to justify their theory selection. Future research should seek to refine the criteria for theory selection to promote more consistent and appropriate use of theory in implementation science