Christoph U. Lehmann, William G. Adams, Juan D. Chaparro, Alexander G. Fiks, Randall W. Grout, Michael G. Leu, Eneida A. Mendonca, Jeremy J. Michel, Kymika Okechukwu, Jeremiah Salmon, Mona Sharifi, & Stephen M. Downs
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: July 2024
Kristen Danforth, Ahsan Maqbool Ahmad, Karl Blanchet, Muhammad Khalid, Arianna Rubin Means, Solomon Tessema Memirie, Ala Alwan & David Watkins
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: March 2023
Essential packages of health services (EPHS) are a critical tool for achieving universal health coverage, especially in low-income and lower middle-income countries. However, there is a lack of guidance and standards for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of EPHS implementation. This paper is the final in a series of papers reviewing experiences using evidence from the Disease Control Priorities, third edition publications in EPHS reforms in seven countries. We assess current approaches to EPHS M&E, including case studies of M&E approaches in Ethiopia and Pakistan. We propose a step-by-step process for developing a national EPHS M&E framework. Such a framework would start with a theory of change that links to the specific health system reforms the EPHS is trying to accomplish, including explicit statements about the ‘what’ and ‘for whom’ of M&E efforts. Monitoring frameworks need to consider the additional demands that could be placed on weak and already overstretched data systems, and they must ensure that processes are put in place to act quickly on emergent implementation challenges. Evaluation frameworks could learn from the field of implementation science; for example, by adapting the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework to policy implementation. While each country will need to develop its own locally relevant M&E indicators, we encourage all countries to include a set of core indicators that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets and indicators. Our paper concludes with a call to reprioritise M&E more generally and to use the EPHS process as an opportunity for strengthening national health information systems. We call for an international learning network on EPHS M&E to generate new evidence and exchange best practices.
**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**
Sarah D. Hohl, Stephanie Melillo, Thuy T. Vu, Cam Escoffery, Amy DeGroff, Dara Schlueter, Leslie W. Ross, Annette E. Maxwell, Krishna P. Sharma, Jennifer Boehm, Djenaba Joseph, Peggy A. Hannon
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: May 2022
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**