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

Evaluation and lessons learned from the dissemination and implementation science scholars program in the national cancer prevention and control research network

Background

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) has been a leader in cancer-related dissemination & implementation (D&I) science. Given increased demand for D&I research, the CPCRN Scholars Program launched in 2021 to expand the number of practitioners, researchers, and trainees proficient in cancer D&I science methods.

Methods

The evaluation was informed by a logic model and data collected through electronic surveys. Through an application process (baseline survey), we assessed scholars' competencies in D&I science domains/subdomains, collected demographic data, and asked scholars to share proposed project ideas. We distributed an exit survey one month after program completion to assess scholars' experience and engagement with the program and changes in D&I competencies. A follow-up survey was administered to alumni nine months post-program to measure their continued network engagement, accomplishments, and skills.

Results

Three cohorts completed the program, consisting of 20, 17, and 25 scholars in Years 1-3, respectively. There was a significant increase in the total D&I competency scores for all three cohorts for 4 overarching domains and 43 subdomains (MPre = 1.38 MPost = 1.89). Differences were greatest for the domain of Practice-Based Considerations (0.50 mean difference) and Theory & Analysis (0.47 mean difference). Alumni surveys revealed that scholars appreciated access to D&I-focused webinars, toolkits, and training resources. 80% remain engaged with CPCRN workgroups and investigators.

Conclusions

Program evaluation with scholars and alumni helped with ongoing quality assurance, introspection, and iterative program adaptation to meet scholars' needs. This approach is recommended for large-scale capacity-building training programs.

Examining provider perceptions and practices for comprehensive geriatric assessment among cancer survivors: a qualitative study with an implementation science focus

Introduction: Cancer rates increase with age, and older cancer survivors have unique medical care needs, making assessment of health status and identification of appropriate supportive resources key to delivery of optimal cancer care. Comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) help determine an older person's functional capabilities as cancer care providers plan treatment and follow-up care. Despite its proven utility, research on implementation of CGA is lacking. Methods: Guided by a qualitative description approach and through interviews with primary care providers and oncologists, our goal was to better understand barriers and facilitators of CGA use and identify training and support needs for implementation. Participants were identified through Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network partner listservs and a national cancer and aging organization. Potential interviewees, contacted via email, were provided with a description of the study purpose. Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted via Zoom, recorded, and transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service. The interview guide explored providers' knowledge and use of CGAs. For codebook development, three representative transcripts were independently reviewed and coded by four team members. The interpretive process involved reflecting, transcribing, coding, and searching for and identifying themes. Results: Providers shared that, while it would be ideal to administer CGAs with all new patients, they were not always able to do this. Instead, they used brief screening tools or portions of CGAs, or both. There was variability in how CGA domains were assessed; however, all considered CGAs useful and they communicated with patients about their benefits. Identified facilitators of implementation included having clinic champions, an interdisciplinary care team to assist with implementation and referrals for intervention, and institutional resources and buy-in. Barriers noted included limited staff capacity and competing demands on time, provider inexperience, and misaligned institutional priorities. Discussion: Findings can guide solutions for improving the broader and more systematic use of CGAs in the care of older cancer patients. Uptake of processes like CGA to better identify those at risk of poor outcomes and intervening early to modify treatments are critical to maximize the health of the growing population of older cancer survivors living through and beyond their disease.