April Lee, Rachel Gold, Rachel Caskey, Sadia Haider, Teresa Schmidt, Emily Ott, Rinad S. Beidas, Amritha Bhat, William Pinnock, Melinda Vredevoogd, Tess Grover, Jena Wallander Gemkow, and Ian M. Bennett
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2024
Kelly A. Aschbrenner, April Y. Oh, Rachel G. Tabak, Peggy A. Hannon, Heather E. Angier, W. Todd Moore, Sonja Likumahuwa-Ackman, Jennifer K. Carroll, Ana A. Baumann, Rinad S. Beidas, Stephanie Mazzucca-Ragan, Erika A. Waters, Rajani S. Sadasivam, and Rachel C. Shelton
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published:September 2023
A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts.
HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019–2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains.
Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars.
Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers’ efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Erica T. Warner, Nathalie Huguet, Michelle Fredericks, Daniel Gundersen, Andrea Nederveld, Meagan C. Brown, Thomas K. Houston, Kia L. Davis, Stephanie Mazzucca, Katharine A. Rendle, & Karen M. Emmons
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published:August 2023
Marlana J. Kohn, Kelly A. Chadwick, & Lesley E. Steinman
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: April 2023
COVID-19 disproportionally impacted the health and well-being of older adults—many of whom live with chronic conditions—due to their higher risk of dying and being hospitalized. It also created several secondary pandemics, including increased falls risk, sedentary behavior, social isolation, and physical inactivity due to limitations in mobility from lock-down policies. With falls as the leading cause of preventable death and hospitalizations, it became vital for in-person evidence-based falls prevention programs (EBFPPs) to pivot to remote delivery. In Spring 2020, many EBFPP administrators began re-designing programs for remote delivery to accommodate physical distancing guidelines necessitated by the pandemic. Transition to remote delivery was essential for older adults and persons with disabilities to access EBFPPs for staying healthy, falls and injury free, out of hospitals, and also keeping them socially engaged. We collaborated with the Administration on Community Living (ACL), the National Council on Aging (NCOA), and the National Falls Prevention Resource Center (NFPRC), for an in-depth implementation evaluation of remotely delivered EBFPPs. We examined the process of adapting and implementing four EBFPPs for remote delivery, best practices for implementing the programs remotely within the RE-AIM evaluation framework. This enhances NFPRC’s ongoing work supporting dissemination, implementation, and sustainability of EBFPPs. We purposively sampled organizations for maximum variation in organization and provider type, geographic location, and reach of underserved older populations (Black, Indigenous, or other People of Color (BIPOC), rural, disabilities).
This qualitative evaluation includes provider-level data from semi-structured interviews (N = 22) with program administrators, staff, and leaders. The interview guide included what, why, and how adaptations were made to EBFPP interventions and implementation strategies using Wiltsey-Stirman (2019) adaptations framework (FRAME), reach, and implementation outcomes (acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and costs; Proctor et al., 2011), focusing on equity to learn for whom these programs were working and opportunities to address inequities. Findings demonstrate remote EBFPPs made planned and fidelity-consistent adaptations to remote delivery in partnership with researchers and community organizations, focusing on participant safety both in program content and delivery. Supports using and accessing technology were needed for delivery sites and leaders to facilitate engagement, and improved over time. While remote EBFPP delivery has increased access to EBFPPs for some populations from the perspective of program administrator, leaders, and staff (e.g., caregivers, rural-dwellers, persons with physical disabilities), the digital divide remains a barrier in access to and comfort using technology. Remote-delivered EBFPPs were acceptable and feasible to delivery organizations and leaders, were able to be delivered with fidelity using adaptations from program developers, but were more resource intensive and costly to implement compared to in-person. This work has important implications beyond the pandemic. Remote delivery has expanded access to groups traditionally underserved by in-person programming, particularly disability communities. This work will help answer important questions about reach, accessibility, feasibility, and cost of program delivery for older adults and people with disabilities at risk for falls, those living with chronic conditions, and communities most vulnerable to disparities in access to health care, health promotion programming, and health outcomes. It will also provide critical information to funders about elements required to adapt EBFPPs proven effective in in-person settings for remote delivery with fidelity to achieve comparable outcomes.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Prajakta Adsul, Jessica Islam, Perla Chebli, Julie Kranick, Sarah Nash, Hannah Arem, Stephanie Wheeler, Melissa Lopez-Pentecost, Victoria Foster, Rashmi K. Sharma, Tisha Felder, Betsy Risendal, Enmanuel A. Chavarria, Simona Kwon, Rachel Hirschey & Chau Trinh-Shevrin
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2023
Although there is national recognition for health equity-oriented research, there is limited guidance for researchers to engage partnerships that promote health equity in cancer research. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network’s (CPCRN) Health Equity Work Group developed a toolkit to guide researchers in equitable collaborations.
The CPCRN’s Health Equity Work Group collectively outlined health and racial equity principles guiding research collaborations with partners that include communities, community-based organizations, implementing partners in the clinical setting including providers and health care organizations, and policy makers. Using a network-wide survey to crowdsource information around ongoing practices, we leveraged and integrated the network’s experience and collaborations.
Data from the survey formed the preliminary basis for the toolkit, with a focus on sharing fiscal resources with partners, training and capacity building, collaborative decision-making, community-driven research agenda setting, and sustainability. The final toolkit provides reflection considerations for researchers and collated exemplary resources, supported by the contemporary research.
The toolkit provides a guide to researchers at all experience levels wanting to engage in equitable research collaborations. Future efforts are underway to evaluate whether and how researchers within and outside CPCRN are able to incorporate these principles in research collaborations.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Gina R. Kruse, Erica Hale, Justin E. Bekelman, Jennifer E. DeVoe, Rachel Gold, Peggy A. Hannon, Thomas K. Houston, Aimee S. James, Ashley Johnson, Lisa M. Klesges & Andrea L. Nederveld
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: February 2023
In 2019–2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in ‘real-world’ settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.
In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.
Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.
The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Prajakta Adsul, David Chambers, Heather M. Brandt, Maria E. Fernandez, Shoba Ramanadhan, Essie Torres, Jennifer Leeman, Barbara Baquero, Linda Fleischer, Cam Escoffery, Karen Emmons, Montserrat Soler, April Oh, Ariella R. Korn, Stephanie Wheeler & Rachel C. Shelton
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2022
The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions.
In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity.
To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Dimitri Renmans, Nandini Sarkar, Sara Van Belle, Clara Affun-Adegbulu, Bruno Marchal, & Ferdinand C. Mukumbang
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: June 2022