Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control

Practical considerations for engaging staff in resource-constrained healthcare settings in implementation research: A qualitative focus group and consensus building study

Background

The primary purpose of this study was to assess perceived burdens and benefits of participating in implementation research among staff employed in resource-constrained healthcare settings. Another objective was to use findings to generate considerations for engaging staff in research across different phases of implementation research.

Methods

This qualitative focus group and consensus building study involved researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control program and nine Community Health Centers (CHCs) in Massachusetts. Six focus groups (n = 3 with CHC staff; n = 3 with researchers) assessed barriers and facilitators to staff participation in implementation research. During consensus discussions, we used findings to develop considerations for engaging staff as participants and partners throughout phases of implementation research.

Results

Sixteen researchers and 14 staff participated in separate focus groups; nine researchers and seven staff participated in separate consensus discussions. Themes emerged across participant groups in three domains: (1) influences on research participation; (2) research burdens and benefits; and (3) ways to facilitate staff participation in research. Practical considerations included: (a) aligning research with organizational and staff values and priorities; (b) applying user-centered design to research methods; (c) building organizational and individual research capacity; and (d) offering equitable incentives for staff participation.

Conclusions

Engaging staff as participants and partners across different phases of implementation research requires knowledge about what contributes to research burden and benefits and addressing context-specific burdens and benefits.

Using routinely available electronic health record data elements to develop and validate a digital divide risk score

Background

Digital health (patient portals, remote monitoring devices, video visits) is a routine part of health care, though the digital divide may affect access.

Objectives

To test and validate an electronic health record (EHR) screening tool to identify patients at risk of the digital divide.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective EHR data extraction and cross-sectional survey of participants within 1 health care system. We identified 4 potential digital divide markers from the EHR: (1) mobile phone number, (2) email address, (3) active patient portal, and (4) >2 patient portal logins in the last year. We mailed surveys to patients at higher risk (missing all 4 markers), intermediate risk (missing 1-3 markers), or lower risk (missing no markers). Combining EHR and survey data, we summarized the markers into risk scores and evaluated its association with patients' report of lack of Internet access. Then, we assessed the association of EHR markers and eHealth Literacy Scale survey outcomes.

Results

A total of 249 patients (39.4%) completed the survey (53%>65 years, 51% female, 50% minority race, 55% rural/small town residents, 46% private insurance, 45% Medicare). Individually, the 4 EHR markers had high sensitivity (range 81%-95%) and specificity (range 65%-79%) compared with survey responses. The EHR marker-based score (high risk, intermediate risk, low risk) predicted absence of Internet access (receiver operator characteristics c-statistic=0.77). Mean digital health literacy scores significantly decreased as her marker digital divide risk increased (P  <.001).

Discussion

Each of the four EHR markers (Cell phone, email address, patient portal active, and patient portal actively used) compared with self-report yielded high levels of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy.

Conclusion

Using these markers, health care systems could target interventions and implementation strategies to support equitable patient access to digital health.

Digital Health for Asthma Management: Electronic Medication Monitoring for Adherence as a Case Example

Digital health is an umbrella term for components of health care using computer platforms, software, connectivity, and sensors to augment the recording, documentation, and communication of clinical information. The functions of digital health may be viewed in three domains: (1) the repository for patient information, (2) monitoring devices, and (3) communication tools. Monitoring devices have provided robust information as diagnostic and prognostic tools in office and hospital settings. In this review, as a case study, we will discuss the research and our direct clinical experience of electronic medication monitoring technology and the potential benefits to patient care, and the opportunities and perils encountered in using this approach for patients with moderate to severe asthma, including issues related to patient uptake and concerns for bias, impacts on the provider-patient relationship, and discussions regarding monitoring of rescue medication use in exacerbations. Additionally, although there is evidence for improvements in various aspects of patient care afforded by electronic medication monitoring, these devices have not yet seen widespread uptake in clinical settings, and we will discuss the steps needed to address these barriers and keep these important devices available for patient use in the future.

Impacts of pragmatic implementation science in a primary care laboratory

The Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative, funded by the National Cancer Institute, called for the development of implementation laboratories to bolster implementation science, create research-ready environments, and expedite adoption and implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice. The Building Research in Implementation and Dissemination to close Gaps and achieve Equity in Cancer Control (BRIDGE-C2) Center is one of seven ISC3 centers. BRIDGE-C2 aims to identify strategies to improve implementation of cancer prevention EBIs and conduct research / develop pragmatic methods to tailor, enhance, and support the adoption and sustainability of these strategies; advance implementation science; and build capacity and training opportunities. Since its inception, the BRIDGE-C2 Center has been conducting research and training activities to advance knowledge on how to effectively implement strategies to improve cancer prevention EBIs in primary care clinics serving socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. The translational science benefits model (TSBM) provides a useful framework for organizing a description of the BRIDGE-C2 Center's activities. In this paper, we describe examples of BRIDGE-C2 activities and the specific impact indicators within each relevant domain/subdomain of the TSBM, demonstrating that a single activity or project has multiple impacts on methods and capacity building, clinical domains, and community health.

Advancing implementation science in community settings: the implementation strategies applied in communities (ISAC) compilation

BACKGROUND

Implementation strategies have predominantly been operationalized and studied in clinical settings. Implementation strategies are also needed to improve evidence-based intervention (EBI) integration in community settings, but there is a lack of systematic characterization of their use, which limits generalizability of findings. The goals of this study were to determine which implementation strategies are most used to deliver primary prevention EBIs in community settings, develop a compilation and pragmatic strategy selection process with accompanying guidance tools, and understand practitioners' preferences for dissemination.

METHODS

Purposive and snowball sampling was used to recruit community setting researchers and practitioners delivering primary prevention EBIs (nutrition, physical activity, tobacco prevention) in community settings: education, social services, city planning and transportation, workplaces, recreation/sport, faith-based, and other public health organizations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using a guide based on the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Participants were asked to describe barriers experienced and strategies used to overcome them within each RE-AIM dimension. Practitioners were also asked about preferred dissemination strategies, prompted by Diffusion of Innovations theory concepts of sources (who provides information) and channels (how information is provided). A rapid deductive approach was used to analyze findings with a coding matrix aligned with the interview guide.

RESULTS

Researchers (n = 10) and practitioners (n = 8) across all targeted settings and intervention outcomes completed interviews. Interviewees shared unique implementation strategies (N = 40) which were used to overcome barriers related to multiple RE-AIM dimensions, most commonly implementation (n = 29) and adoption (n = 27). Most frequently mentioned implementation strategies were conduct pragmatic evaluation (n = 31), provide training (n = 26), change adaptable program components (n = 26), and leverage funding sources (n = 21). Webinars (n = 6) and listservs/newsletters (n = 5) were the most mentioned dissemination channels; national public health organizations (n = 13) were the most mentioned sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Results reflect commonly used implementation strategies in community settings (e.g., training, technical assistance) and add novel strategies not reflected in current taxonomies. Dissemination preferences suggest the need to involve broad-reaching public health organizations. The resultant compilation (Implementation Strategies Applied in Communities) and strategy selection process provide resources to assist researchers and practitioners in applying strategies and improving EBI delivery in community settings.

Extending the translational science benefits model to implementation science for cancer prevention and control

Introduction

There is increasing pressure on the federal research budget and shifting public opinions about the value of the academic enterprise. We must develop and apply metrics that demonstrate the broad benefits of research for health and society. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) measures the impact of large-scale translational science initiatives, such as the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot. TSBM provides the scaffolding to illustrate how science has real-world health impacts. We propose an expansion of the TSBM to explicitly include implementation-focused outcomes.

Methods

TSBM includes four categories of benefits, including (1) clinical and medical, (2) community and public health, (3) economic, and (4) policy and legislative. Implementation science outcomes serve as a precursor to the model's established domains of impact and can help to sharpen focus on the translational steps needed to achieve a broad range of impacts. We provide several examples of studies that illustrate these implementation outcomes and other clinical and community benefits.

Conclusions

It is important to consider a broad range of scientific impacts and the conditions that are necessary to achieve them. The expansion of the TSBM to include implementation science outcomes may help to accelerate the cancer community's ability to achieve the goal of preventing 4 million cancer deaths by 2047.

Applying the dissemination and implementation sciences to allergy and immunology: A Work Group Report from the AAAAI Quality, Adherence, and Outcomes Committee

Translating evidence-based practice (EBP) into real-world clinical settings often takes a considerable amount of time and resources. In allergy and immunology, the dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences facilitate the study of how variations in knowledge, resources, patient populations, and staffing models lead to differences in the clinical care of asthma, allergic disease, and primary immunodeficiency. Despite the need for validated approaches to study how to best apply EBP in the real world, the D&I sciences are underutilized. To address this gap, an American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) work group was convened to provide an overview for the role of the D&I sciences in clinical care and future research within the field. For the D&I sciences to be leveraged effectively, teams should be multidisciplinary and inclusive of community and clinical partners, and multimethods approaches to data collection and analyses should be used. Used appropriately, the D&I sciences provide important tools to promote EBP and health equity as well as optimization of clinical practice in allergy and immunology.

A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

METHOD

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

RESULTS

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Applying cognitive walkthrough methodology to improve the usability of an equity-focused implementation strategy

BACKGROUND

Our research team partnered with primary care and quality improvement staff in Federally Qualified Community Health Centers (CHCs) to develop Partnered and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (PEDDI) to promote equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions. The current study used a human-centered design methodology to evaluate the usability of PEDDI and generate redesign solutions to address usability issues in the context of a cancer screening intervention.

METHODS

We applied the Cognitive Walkthrough for Implementation Strategies (CWIS), a pragmatic assessment method with steps that include group testing with end users to identify and prioritize usability problems. We conducted three facilitated 60-min CWIS sessions with end users (N = 7) from four CHCs that included scenarios and related tasks for implementing a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening intervention. Participants rated the likelihood of completing each task and identified usability issues and generated ideas for redesign solutions during audio-recorded CWIS sessions. Participants completed a pre-post survey of PEDDI usability. Our research team used consensus coding to synthesize usability problems and redesign solutions from transcribed CWIS sessions.

RESULTS

Usability ratings (scale 0-100: higher scores indicating higher usability) of PEDDI averaged 66.3 (SD = 12.4) prior to the CWIS sessions. Scores averaged 77.8 (SD = 9.1) following the three CWIS sessions improving usability ratings from "marginal acceptability" to "acceptable". Ten usability problems were identified across four PEDDI tasks, comprised of 2-3 types of usability problems per task. CWIS participants suggested redesign solutions that included making data fields for social determinants of health and key background variables for identifying health equity targets mandatory in the electronic health record and using asynchronous communication tools to elicit ideas from staff for adaptations.

CONCLUSIONS

Usability ratings indicated PEDDI was in the acceptable range following CWIS sessions. Staff identified usability problems and redesign solutions that provide direction for future improvements in PEDDI. In addition, this study highlights opportunities to use the CWIS methodology to address inequities in the implementation of cancer screening and other clinical innovations in resource-constrained healthcare settings.

A Hybrid Type III Effectiveness-Implementation Trial to Optimize Medication Safety With Oral Antitumor Therapy in Real-World: The AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center

PURPOSE

Implementation science endeavors to facilitate the translation of evidence-based research into clinical routine. The clinical pharmacological/pharmaceutical care program evaluated in the randomized AMBORA trial on medication safety with oral antitumor therapeutics (OAT) optimizes care delivery and provides significant benefits for patients, treatment teams, and health care systems. Thus, we aimed to investigate the implementation of this care program within the AMBORA Competence and Consultation Center (AMBORA Center).

METHODS

The AMBORA Center within a University Comprehensive Cancer Center offered several services (eg, patient consultations) and was evaluated according to the RE-AIM framework. This multicenter hybrid type III trial focused on implementation outcomes (eg, patient recruitment, referring units, evaluation of services) while concurrently investigating effectiveness (eg, side effects, medication errors). Quantitative and qualitative assessments were combined.

RESULTS

The AMBORA Center conducted over 800 consultations with 420 patients in seven institutions. The primary end point of counseling 70% of patients treated with OAT was not reached. Patients were referred by 15 treatment units compared with 11 units in the AMBORA trial. On the basis of heterogeneous referral rates and characteristics across the institutions, barriers and facilitators of the implementation process were derived. Several survey results (eg, stakeholder interviews, online/paper-based questionnaires) reflected a high appreciation of services by patients and health care professionals. The severity of 60.1% (178 of 296) of detected side effects improved, and 86.3% (297 of 344) of medication errors were resolved.

CONCLUSION

Despite not reaching the primary implementation outcome, the AMBORA Center included more treatment units and demonstrated patient benefit of the AMBORA care program by meeting all effectiveness outcomes. We outlined quantitative and qualitative implementation characteristics to enhance outreach and foster further dissemination of centers to optimize medication safety with OAT.

Research and Practice in Quality Improvement and Implementation Science: The Synergy for Change Model

BACKGROUND

Nurses play an essential role in the achievement of quality depicted by the Quintuple Aim to improve clinical outcomes, patient experience, equity, provider well-being, and reduction of costs. When quality gaps occur, practice change is required and is facilitated by quality improvement (QI) and implementation science (IS) methods. QI and IS research are required to advance our understanding of the mechanisms that explain how evidence is implemented and improvements are made.

PROBLEM

Despite past efforts of the evidence-based practice and QI movements, challenges persist in sustaining practice improvements and translating research findings to direct patient care.

APPROACH

The purpose of this article is to describe the Synergy for Change Model that proposes that both QI and IS research and practice be used to accelerate improvements in health care quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing the synergy of QI and IS practice and research will accelerate nursing's contributions to high-quality and safe care.

Use of concept mapping to inform a participatory engagement approach for implementation of evidence-based HPV vaccination strategies in safety-net clinics

BACKGROUND

Multiple evidence-based strategies (EBS) for promoting HPV vaccination exist. However, adolescent HPV vaccination rates remain below target levels in communities at high risk for HPV-associated cancers and served by safety-net clinics. Participatory engaged approaches are needed to leverage the expertise of community and clinical partners in selecting EBS relevant to their local context. We engaged concept mapping as a method to inform the adoption and adaptation of EBS that seeks to empower implementation partners to prioritize, select, and ultimately implement context-relevant EBS for HPV vaccination.

METHODS

Using 38 EBS statements generated from qualitative interviews and national HPV vaccine advocacy sources, we conducted a modified concept mapping activity with partners internal to safety-net clinics and external community members in two study sites of a larger implementation study (Greater Los Angeles and New Jersey), to sort EBS into clusters and rate each EBS by importance and feasibility for increasing HPV vaccination within safety-net clinics. Concept mapping findings (EBS statement ratings, ladder graphs and go-zones) were shared with leaders from a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) system (focusing on three clinic sites), to select and implement EBS over 12 months.

RESULTS

Concept mapping participants (n=23) sorted and rated statements, resulting in an eight-cluster solution: 1) Community education and outreach; 2) Advocacy and policy; 3) Data access/quality improvement monitoring; 4) Provider tracking/audit and feedback; 5) Provider recommendation/communication; 6) Expanding vaccine access; 7) Reducing missed opportunities; and 8) Nurse/staff workflow and training. The FQHC partner then selected to intervene on eight of 17 EBS statements in the "go-zone" for action, with three from "reducing missed opportunities," two from "nurse/staff workflow and training," and one each from "provider tracking/audit and feedback," "provider recommendation/communication," and "expanding vaccine access," which the research team addressed through the implementation of three multi-level intervention strategies (e.g., physician communication training, staff training and workflow assessment, audit and feedback of clinic processes).

CONCLUSIONS

Concept mapping provided a powerful participatory approach to identify multilevel EBS for HPV vaccination relevant to the local safety-net clinic context, particularly when several strategies exist, and prioritization is necessary. This study demonstrates how a clinic system benefited directly from the ratings and prioritization of EBS by multilevel clinic and community partners within the broader safety-net clinic context to identify and adapt prioritized solutions needed to advance HPV vaccine equity.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Provision of colonoscopy in rural settings: A qualitative assessment of provider context, barriers, facilitators, and capacity

PURPOSE

Colonoscopy can prevent morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) and is the most commonly used screening method in the United States. Barriers to colonoscopy at multiple levels can contribute to disparities. Yet, in rural settings, little is known about who delivers colonoscopy and facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy access through screening completion.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study with providers in rural Oregon who worked in endoscopy centers or primary care clinics. Semistructured interviews, conducted in July and August, 2021, focused on clinician experiences providing colonoscopy to rural Medicaid patients, including workflows, barriers, and access. We used thematic analysis, through immersion crystallization, to analyze interview transcripts and develop emergent themes.

FINDINGS

We interviewed 19 providers. We found two categories of colonoscopy providers: primary care providers (PCPs) doing colonoscopy on their own patients (n = 9; 47%) and general surgeons providing colonoscopy to patients referred to their services (n = 10; 53%). Providers described barriers to colonoscopy at the provider, community, and patient levels and suggested patient supports could help overcome them. Providers found current colonoscopy capacity sufficient, but noted PCPs trained to perform colonoscopy would be key to continued accessibility. Finally, providers shared concerns about the shrinking number of PCP endoscopists, especially with anticipated increased screening demand related to the CRC screening guideline shift.

CONCLUSIONS

These themes reflect opportunities to address multilevel barriers to improve access, colonoscopy capacity, and patient education approaches. Our results highlight that PCPs are an essential part of the workforce that provides colonoscopy in rural areas.

Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. We examined how health equity was operationalized and addressed at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership (n = 19) and staff (n = 12) at 10 FQHCs in an implementation science partnership network for cancer control equity to understand how they operationalized and addressed health equity. We performed rapid qualitative analysis and shared findings with a larger group of 13 community health centers (including the 10 FQHCs) at an Implementation Learning Community (ILC) to identify action areas for research and practice, followed by a second phase of synthesizing qualitative codes into themes and mapping themes onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations. Participants defined health equity as central to the mission of FQHCs, and identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. These findings resonated with ILC participants who emphasized the challenge of addressing root cause social determinants of inequities using limited available resources in FQHCs and the importance of developing meaningful collaboration with communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership. Themes captured recommendations to advance health equity in daily work at FQHCs, including investments in staffing, training, and resources. Mapping qualitative themes from health equity-centered interviews with FQHC partners onto a framework for advancing health equity in healthcare organizations can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions aimed at improving health and healthcare equity.

Plasmonic nanoprobes on single AuNTs for evaluating and monitoring the dynamic release of 2D drug carriers

The use of nanomaterials in drug delivery has gained significant attention in recent years. In this project, we developed a novel localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) nanoprobe on single gold triangular nanoplates (AuNTs) for dynamic monitoring of the drug carrier release process. Graphene, as the drug carrier, could be immobilized on the AuNT surface through the π-π* stacking effect. Upon loading or releasing the model drug (doxorubicin, DOX), subtle changes in the local microenvironment's dielectric constant around the AuNTs induced notable red-shifts or blue-shifts in the LSPR scattering spectra of single AuNTs. Furthermore, the spectral shifts led to a continuous enhancement in the red channel of the dark field microscopy (DFM) images during the drug release process in vitro, demonstrating that the drug release system is not susceptible to potential confounding factors. These release kinetics results under different conditions could be well-fitted using the Higuchi desorption model, further proving that this nanoprobe could be employed for evaluating the controlled release ability of 2D nanocarriers. These findings are expected to inspire new ideas and technologies in the preparation of more effective drug carriers, making a significant contribution to the development of drug delivery nanosystems and nanomedicine.

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

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.

Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science

BACKGROUND

Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.

METHODS

The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.

RESULTS

The initial logic model for ISC3 changed in significant ways as a result of the input of the funded groups. Authentic participation in the development of the logic model led to strong buy-in among the centers, as evidenced by their utilization. The centers shifted both their evaluation design and their programmatic strategy to better accommodate the expectations reflected in the initiative logic model.

CONCLUSIONS

The ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative's stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder's expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.

Advancing health equity through implementation science: Identifying and examining measures of the outer setting

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) could accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals. However, the lack of attention to the outer setting where interventions are implemented limits applicability and generalizability of findings to different populations, settings, and time periods. We developed a data resource to assess outer setting across seven centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's IS Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network Program.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development of the Outer Setting Data Resource and characterize the county-level outer context across Centers.

METHODS

Our Data Resource captures seven key environments, including: (1) food; (2) physical; (3) economic; (4) social; (5) health care; (6) cancer behavioral and screening; and (7) cancer-related policy. Data were obtained from public sources including the US Census and American Community Survey. We present medians and interquartile ranges based on the distribution of all counties in the US, all ISC3 centers, and within each Center for twelve selected measures. Distributions of each factor are compared with the national estimate using single sample sign tests.

RESULTS

ISC3 centers' catchment areas include 458 counties and over 126 million people across 28 states. The median percentage of population living within ½ mile of a park is higher in ISC3 counties (38.0%, interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-59.0%) compared to nationally (18.0%, IQR: 7.0%-38.0%; p < 0.0001). The median percentage of households with no broadband access is significantly lower in ISC3 counties (28.4%, IQR: 21.4%-35.6%) compared the nation overall (32.8%, IQR: 25.8%-41.2%; p < 0.0001). The median unemployment rate was significantly higher in ISC3 counties (5.2%, IQR: 4.1%-6.4%) compared to nationally (4.9%, 3.6%-6.3%, p = 0.0006).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that the outer setting varies across Centers and often differs from the national level. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the contextual environment in which interventions are implemented and suggest potential implications for intervention generalizability and scalability.