An application of the Science Impact Framework to the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network from 2014-2018

A scoping review of theories, models and frameworks used or proposed to evaluate knowledge mobilization strategies

BACKGROUND

Evaluating knowledge mobilization strategies (KMb) presents challenges for organizations seeking to understand their impact to improve KMb effectiveness. Moreover, the large number of theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) available can be confusing for users. Therefore, the purpose of this scoping review was to identify and describe the characteristics of TMFs that have been used or proposed in the literature to evaluate KMb strategies.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used. Articles were identified through searches in electronic databases, previous reviews and reference lists of included articles. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form. Data extracted included study characteristics, KMb characteristics, and TMFs used or proposed for KMb evaluation. An adapted version of Nilsen (Implement Sci 10:53, 2015) taxonomy and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy (Powell et al. in Implement Sci 10:21, 2015) guided data synthesis.

RESULTS

Of the 4763 search results, 505 were retrieved, and 88 articles were eligible for review. These consisted of 40 theoretical articles (45.5%), 44 empirical studies (50.0%) and four protocols (4.5%). The majority were published after 2010 (n = 70, 79.5%) and were health related (n = 71, 80.7%). Half of the studied KMb strategies were implemented in only four countries: Canada, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom (n = 42, 47.7%). One-third used existing TMFs (n = 28, 31.8%). According to the adapted Nilsen taxonomy, process models (n = 34, 38.6%) and evaluation frameworks (n = 28, 31.8%) were the two most frequent types of TMFs used or proposed to evaluate KMb. According to the ERIC taxonomy, activities to "train and educate stakeholders" (n = 46, 52.3%) were the most common, followed by activities to "develop stakeholder interrelationships" (n = 23, 26.1%). Analysis of the TMFs identified revealed relevant factors of interest for the evaluation of KMb strategies, classified into four dimensions: context, process, effects and impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review provides an overview of the many KMb TMFs used or proposed. The results provide insight into potential dimensions and components to be considered when assessing KMb strategies.

Twenty years of collaborative research to enhance community practice for cancer prevention and control

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) was established in 2002 to conduct applied research and undertake related activities to translate evidence into practice, with a special focus on the unmet needs of populations at higher risk of getting cancer and dying from it. A network of academic, public health and community partners, CPCRN is a thematic research network of the Prevention Research Centers Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) has been a consistent collaborator. The CPCRN has fostered research on geographically dispersed populations through cross-institution partnerships across the network. Since its inception, the CPCRN has applied rigorous scientific methods to fill knowledge gaps in the application and implementation of evidence-based interventions, and it has developed a generation of leading investigators in the dissemination and implementation of effective public health practices. This article reflects on how CPCRN addressed national priorities, contributed to CDC's programs, emphasized health equity and impacted science over the past twenty years and potential future directions.

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

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.

The value of the Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research and Evaluation Network in advancing the evidence base for effective nutrition and obesity policy: assessment using the Consolidated Framework for Collaborative Research

INTRODUCTION

Addressing nutrition disparities and preventing obesity require multi-level interventions, including policies that address the nutrition environment and other social determinants of health. The Nutrition and Obesity Policy Research Evaluation Network (NOPREN) was established in 2009 to conduct transdisciplinary research and accelerate the translation and implementation of science-based policy interventions. This study examined NOPREN's collaborative practices and identified opportunities to improve network impact.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods approach, we combined quantitative survey data (n = 106) and in-depth, qualitative interviews (n = 18) to evaluate the experiences of NOPREN members and understand the extent to which NOPREN was achieving its goals.

RESULTS

Using the Consolidated Framework for Collaborative Research (CFCR), quantitative and qualitative results were organized into 11 themes. We find that NOPREN's structure and standardized processes facilitate connections to individuals and resources, foster relationships, and support effective cross-sector collaborations. Areas of improvement include capacity building and a more intentional approach towards recruitment of a diverse membership.

CONCLUSION

A collaborative research network can build synergy across sectors and accelerate knowledge transfer. These findings will be used to inform the network's strategic priorities to maximize impact. Findings may also inform similar collaborative efforts for addressing complex public health problems.

A science impact framework to measure impact beyond journal metrics

Measuring the impact of public health science or research is important especially when it comes to health outcomes. Achieving the desired health outcomes take time and may be influenced by several contributors, making attribution of credit to any one entity or effort problematic. Here we offer a science impact framework (SIF) for tracing and linking public health science to events and/or actions with recognized impact beyond journal metrics. The SIF was modeled on the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Degrees of Impact Thermometer, but differs in that SIF is not incremental, not chronological, and has expanded scope. The SIF recognizes five domains of influence: disseminating science, creating awareness, catalyzing action, effecting change and shaping the future (scope differs from IOM). For public health, the goal is to achieve one or more specific health outcomes. What is unique about this framework is that the focus is not just on the projected impact or outcome but rather the effects that are occurring in real time with the recognition that the measurement field is complex, and it takes time for the ultimate outcome to occur. The SIF is flexible and can be tailored to measure the impact of any scientific effort: from complex initiatives to individual publications. The SIF may be used to measure impact prospectively of an ongoing or new body of work (e.g., research, guidelines and recommendations, or technology) and retrospectively of completed and disseminated work, through linking of events using indicators that are known and have been used for measuring impact. Additionally, linking events offers an approach to both tell our story and also acknowledge other players in the chain of events. The value added by science can easily be relayed to the scientific community, policy makers and the public.