Peggy A. Hannon Archives - Implementation Science at UW

✪ Community partner coauthorship for increased implementation science impact: Strengthening capacity and engagement

Abstract:

Engaging diverse partners in each phase of the research process is the gold standard of community-engaged research and adds value to the impact of implementation science. However, partner engagement in dissemination, particularly meaningful involvement in developing peer-reviewed manuscripts, is lacking. The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control are using the Translational Science Benefits Model to demonstrate the impact of our work beyond traditional metrics, including building capacity and promoting community engagement. This paper presents a case example of one center that has developed a policy for including community partners as coauthors. Standard practices are used to foster clear communications and bidirectional collaboration. Of published papers focused on center infrastructure and implementation research pilots, 92% have community partner coauthors. This includes 21 individuals in roles ranging from physician assistant to medical director to quality manager. Through this intentional experience of co-creation, community partners have strengthened implementation science expertise. Community coauthors have also ensured that data interpretation and dissemination reflect real-world practice environments and offer sustainable strategies for rapid translation to practice improvements. Funders, academic journals, and researchers all have important roles to play in supporting community coauthors as critical thought partners who can help to narrow the gap between research and practice.

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

✪ Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute’s implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network

Abstract:

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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**}

✪ The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice

Abstract:

Purpose

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members.

Methods

We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation.

Results

Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN’s success—in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci—is attributable to: (1) its people–the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change.

Conclusion

CPCRN’s history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

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

✪ Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement

Abstract:

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics’ adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

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

✪ Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

Abstract:

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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**}

✪ Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics

Abstract:

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics’ readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP).

We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

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

Development of a Wellness Committee Implementation Index for Workplace Health Promotion Programs in Small Businesses

The cancer prevention and control research network: Accelerating the implementation of evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions

✪ Readiness to Change Over Time: Change Commitment and Change Efficacy in a Workplace Health-Promotion Trial

Abstract:

Introduction

Organizational readiness to change may be a key determinant of implementation success and a mediator of the effectiveness of implementation interventions. If organizational readiness can be reliably and validly assessed at the outset of a change initiative, it could be used to assess the effectiveness of implementation-support activities by measuring changes in readiness factors over time.

Methods

We analyzed two waves of readiness-to-change survey data collected as part of a three-arm, randomized controlled trial to implement evidence-based health promotion practices in small worksites in low-wage industries. We measured five readiness factors: context (favorable broader conditions); change valence (valuing health promotion); information assessment (demands and resources to implement health promotion); change commitment (an intention to implement health promotion); and change efficacy (a belief in shared ability to implement health promotion). We expected commitment and efficacy to increase at intervention sites along with their self-reported effort to implement health promotion practices, termed wellness-program effort. We compared means between baseline and 15 months, and between intervention and control sites. We used linear regression to test whether intervention and control sites differed in their change-readiness scores over time.

Results

Only context and change commitment met reliability thresholds. Change commitment declined significantly for both control (−0.39) and interventions sites (−0.29) from baseline to 15 months, while context did not change for either. Only wellness program effort at 15 months, but not at baseline, differed significantly between control and intervention sites (1.20 controls, 2.02 intervention). Regression analyses resulted in two significant differences between intervention and control sites in changes from baseline to 15 months: (1) intervention sites exhibited significantly smaller change in context scores relative to control sites over time and (2) intervention sites exhibited significantly higher changes in wellness program effort relative to control sites.

Discussion

Contrary to our hypothesis, change commitment declined significantly at both Healthlinks and control sites, even as wellness-program effort increased significantly at HealthLinks sites. Regression to the mean may explain the decline in change commitment. Future research needs to assess whether baseline commitment is an independent predictor of wellness-program effort or an effect modifier of the HealthLinks intervention.

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

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text open access in the journal Hepatology Communications

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access Journal of Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Prevention Science

Abstract:

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Authors:

✪ Open Access

Read the full text in the open access journal Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy

Abstract:

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text in the subscription access American Journal of Health Promotion

Authors:

Read the full text open access in the journal Preventive Medicine

Authors:

✪ Open Access

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

Abstract:

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Authors:

Subscription Required for Full Text Access

Read the full text open access in the subscription access American Journal of Preventive Medicine