Adoption of an evidence-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program by community organizations serving Filipino Americans
1 Fielding School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Los Angeles, 650 Charles Young Dr. South A2-125 CHS, Box 956900, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900, USA
2 UCLA Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Equity, 650 Charles Young Dr. South A2-125 CHS, Box 956900, Los Angeles, CA 90095-6900, USA
BMC Public Health 2014, 14:246 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-246Published: 12 March 2014
Filipino Americans have low rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and high CRC mortality. To reduce this disparity, we conducted a dissemination trial in which we offered two levels of technical assistance to community organizations to disseminate an evidence-based CRC screening promotion program among their Filipino American members. This report describes the recruitment of organizations and adoption – the proportion and representativeness of organizations that decided to implement the program.
During the recruitment phase, we completed organizational assessments with 44 community-based organizations (previous partners in research, organizations that were referred to us, or new organizations) to assess their eligibility to participate (having ≥ 150 Filipino American members age 50+). We compared organizational characteristics of organizations that did and did not adopt our CRC screening promotion program.
Twenty two of the 44 community organizations that completed the assessment adopted the CRC screening promotion program (50%). Adoption was highest among organizations that had previously partnered with us (11/14 = 79%) and among organizations that were referred to us by community partners (5/10 = 50%) and lowest among new organizations (6/20 = 30%). Few organizational differences were found between adopters and non-adopters.
The high rate of adoption among organizations that were referred by community partners or had partnered with us in the past underscores the importance of community resources, community-academic relationships, and partnership in the dissemination process. However, the moderate rate of adoption among new organizations and the demands of completing documentation and assessments in our trial to advance dissemination research raise questions regarding the generalizability of study findings.