Skip to content
Implementation Science at UW

Keywords: Manal Masud

✪ Characterizing screening champions in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP)

Authors:

Cam Escoffery, Juzhong Sun, Amy DeGroff, Krishna Sharma, Manal Masud, Thuy Vu, Dara Schlueter & Peggy Hannon

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: July 2025

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:

Background

CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) aims to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence by implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in health system clinics partnering with the program. Program champions, as one of the key program components, are expected to facilitate the implementation of EBIs and support desired changes in many ways. Given limited information about the champions in clinical systems, this study investigated champion types, roles, and sustainability within the CRCCP.

Methods

This mixed methods, cross-sectional study included a survey of 205 respondents (health system and clinic staff) representing 303 clinics and 12 qualitative interviews of CRCCP award recipients and partnering clinics. The survey assessed clinic characteristics, EBI implementation, information about program champions, and sustainability. Interview topics included champion roles, benefits, turnover, and maintenance.

Findings

Champions worked at either the health system or clinic level. Among health systems, champions were quality improvement (QI) managers (48.5%), physicians (36.4%), or high-level administrators (27.3%). In clinics, champions were physicians (37.0%), QI managers (26.1%) or medical assistants (23.9%). Champions in both health systems and clinics were most often assigned the role (45.5% and 45.7%, respectively); yet clinic champions were more likely to naturally emerge than health system champions (26.1% vs. 15.2%). Among naturally emerging champions, 64.3% experienced zero turnover, more than for assigned champions. While champions in both groups received training, more champions in health systems reported being trained than those in clinics (75.8% vs 52.2%). No significant differences in EBIs implemented were observed between those clinics with and without a champion. Zero champion turnover was associated with great or very great leadership support (68.9%), program adaptation (60.7%) and organizational capacity (54.1%). Interviews found that champions’ roles included advocating for CRC screening, providing technical assistance for EBI implementation, creating organizational policies for CRC screening, and overseeing QI. Interviewees reported a desire to address champion sustainability.

Conclusion

These findings inform the use of program champions for clinic-based public health programs. Naturally emerging champions were more stable than those assigned the role.

Contributions to the literature

  • Research has demonstrated that program champions can assist in the implementation of evidence-based interventions; however, there is limited understanding of the types of champions, their roles, and turnover.
  • These findings contribute to this gap by describing the types of program champions, their training and major roles in implementing evidence-based interventions for colorectal cancer screening.
  • Common roles for champions were implementers, advocates, connectors, motivators, changemakers, data wranglers, educators, and sustainability resource.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Toward a more comprehensive understanding of organizational influences on implementation: the organization theory for implementation science framework

Authors:

Sarah A. Birken, Cheyenne R. Wagi, Alexandra G. Peluso, Michelle C. Kegler, Jure Baloh, Prajakta Adsul, Maria E. Fernandez, Manal Masud, Terry T-K Huang, Matthew Lee, Mary Wangen, Per Nilsen, Miriam Bender, Mimi Choy-Brown, Grace Ryan, Aliza Randazzo, and Linda K. Ko

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: August 2023

Read the full text in the open access journal Frontiers in Health Services

Abstract:

Introduction

Implementation is influenced by factors beyond individual clinical settings. Nevertheless, implementation research often focuses on factors related to individual providers and practices, potentially due to limitations of available frameworks. Extant frameworks do not adequately capture the myriad organizational influences on implementation. Organization theories capture diverse organizational influences but remain underused in implementation science. To advance their use among implementation scientists, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories identified in our previous work into theoretical domains in the Organization Theory for Implementation Science (OTIS) framework.

Methods

The process of distilling organization theory constructs into domains involved concept mapping and iterative consensus-building. First, we recruited organization and implementation scientists to participate in an online concept mapping exercise in which they sorted organization theory constructs into domains representing similar theoretical concepts. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used to produce visual representations (clusters) of the relationships among constructs in concept maps. Second, to interpret concept maps, we engaged members of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) OTIS workgroup in consensus-building discussions.

Results

Twenty-four experts participated in concept mapping. Based on resulting construct groupings' coherence, OTIS workgroup members selected the 10-cluster solution (from options of 7–13 clusters) and then reorganized clusters in consensus-building discussions to increase coherence. This process yielded six final OTIS domains: organizational characteristics (e.g., size; age); governance and operations (e.g., organizational and social subsystems); tasks and processes (e.g., technology cycles; excess capacity); knowledge and learning (e.g., tacit knowledge; sense making); characteristics of a population of organizations (e.g., isomorphism; selection pressure); and interorganizational relationships (e.g., dominance; interdependence).

Discussion

Organizational influences on implementation are poorly understood, in part due to the limitations of extant frameworks. To improve understanding of organizational influences on implementation, we distilled 70 constructs from nine organization theories into six domains. Applications of the OTIS framework will enhance understanding of organizational influences on implementation, promote theory-driven strategies for organizational change, improve understanding of mechanisms underlying relationships between OTIS constructs and implementation, and allow for framework refinement. Next steps include testing the OTIS framework in implementation research and adapting it for use among policymakers and practitioners.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**

✪ Implementation studio: implementation support program to build the capacity of rural community health educators serving immigrant communities to implement evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions

Authors:

Linda K. Ko, Thuy Vu, Sonia Bishop, Jennifer Leeman, Cam Escoffery, Rachel L. Winer, Miriana C. Duran, Manal Masud & Yaniv Rait

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published:July 2023

Read the full text open access in the journal Cancer Causes and Control

Abstract:

Purpose

Rural community-based organizations (CBOs) serving immigrant communities are critical settings for implementing evidence-based interventions (EBIs). The Implementation Studio is a training and consultation program focused on facilitating the selection, adaptation, and implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs. This paper describes implementation and evaluation of the Implementation Studio on CBO’s capacity to implement EBIs and their clients’ knowledge of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and intention to screen.

Methods

Thirteen community health educators (CHEs) from two CBOs participated in the Implementation Studio. Both CBOs selected CRC EBIs during the Studio. The evaluation included two steps. The first step assessed the CHEs’ capacity to select, adapt, and implement an EBI. The second step assessed the effect of the CHEs-delivered EBIs on clients’ knowledge of CRC and intention to screen (n = 44).

Results

All CHEs were Hispanic and women. Pre/post-evaluation of the Studio showed an increase on CHEs knowledge about EBIs (pre: 23% to post: 75%; p < 0.001). CHEs’ ability to select, adapt, and implement EBIs also increased, respectively: select EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), adapt EBI (pre: 21% to post: 92%; p < 0.001), and implement EBI (pre: 29% to post: 75%; p = 0.003). Pre/post-evaluation of the CHE-delivered EBI showed an increase on CRC screening knowledge (p < 0.5) and intention to screen for CRC by their clients.

Conclusion

Implementation Studio can address unique needs of low resource rural CBOs. An implementation support program with training and consultation has potential to build the capacity of rural CBOs serving immigrant communities to implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**