The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method.

BACKGROUND: Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time. METHODS: The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

National Cancer Institute funding for rapid cycle interventional research in cancer care delivery.

BACKGROUND: Rapid cycle interventional research can accelerate improvements to cancer care delivery and patient health outcomes by answering multiple questions as part of a single research study. To complement ongoing efforts to increase awareness of and support for rapid cycle interventional research, we conducted a systematic portfolio analysis of research grants funded by the National Cancer Institute on the topic. METHODS: We used standard portfolio analytic methods for identifying, coding, and synthesizing rapid cycle interventional research funded by the National Cancer Institute between 2016 and 2022. A codebook was used to standardize assessment of the grants by common study characteristics, intervention topics, and cancer care delivery context. RESULTS: We identified 26 grants, mostly funded since 2019, as rapid cycle interventional research. Most studies included adult or older adult target populations, used electronic systems for intervention delivery, and focused primarily on testing different components of interventions. Studies also used a range of study designs, intervention content areas, cancer sites, and across the cancer control continuum. CONCLUSIONS: The current portfolio analysis of funded rapid cycle interventional research grants suggests a growing albeit relatively small number of studies in this area. Several efforts are needed to continue to grow this area of research, including training programs, funding opportunities, and strengthening research-practice partnerships. This analysis provides a snapshot of current studies and highlights the opportunity for growing this important area of research to optimize cancer care delivery and improve patient outcomes.

Characteristics of patient navigation programs in the Cancer Moonshot ACCSIS colorectal cancer screening initiative.

BACKGROUND: Although patient navigation has shown promise for increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up, little evidence is available to guide implementation of patient navigation in clinical practice. We characterize 8 patient navigation programs being implemented as part of multi-component interventions of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Moonshot Accelerating Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Implementation Science (ACCSIS) initiative. METHODS: We developed a data collection template organized by ACCSIS framework domains. The template was populated by a representative from each of the 8 ACCSIS research projects. We report standardized descriptions of 1) the socio-ecological context in which the navigation program was being conducted, 2) navigation program characteristics, 3) activities undertaken to facilitate program implementation (eg, training), and 4) outcomes used in program evaluation. RESULTS: ACCSIS patient navigation programs varied broadly in their socio-ecological context and settings, the populations they served, and how they were implemented in practice. Six research projects adapted and implemented evidence-based patient navigation programs; the remaining projects developed new programs. Five projects began navigation when patients were due for initial colorectal cancer screening; 3 projects began navigation later in the screening process, when patients were due for follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal stool-test result. Seven projects relied on existing clinical staff to deliver the navigation; 1 hired a centralized research navigator. All project researchers plan to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of their programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our detailed program descriptions may facilitate cross-project comparisons and guide future implementation and evaluation of patient navigation programs in clinical practice.

Advancing rapid cycle research in cancer care delivery: a National Cancer Institute workshop report.

Generating actionable research findings quickly and efficiently is critical for improving the delivery of cancer-related care and outcomes. To address this issue, the National Cancer Institute convened subject matter experts, researchers, clinicians, and patients for a 2-day virtual meeting in February 2022. The purpose of this meeting was to identify how rapid cycle interventional research methods can be used to generate findings useful in improving routine clinical practice. The meeting yielded an initial conceptualization of rapid cycle interventional research as being comprised of 6 key elements: use of iterative study designs; reliance on proximal primary outcomes; early and continued engagement with community and clinical partners; use of existing data sources to measure primary outcomes; facilitative features of the study setting and context; and consideration of appropriate rigor relative to intended use of findings. The meeting also identified the types of study designs that can be leveraged to conduct rapid cycle interventional research and provided examples of these; considered this approach from the perspective of key partners; described the clinical and data infrastructure, research resources, and key collaborations needed to support this work; identified research topics best addressed using this approach; and considered needed methodological advances. The National Cancer Institute is committed to exploring opportunities to encourage further development and application of this research approach as a means for better promoting improvements in the delivery of cancer-related care.

Influence of Cost-Related Considerations on Clinical Trial Participation: Results from the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

BACKGROUND: People experiencing financial burden are underrepresented in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of cost-related considerations influential to trial participation and their associations with person-level characteristics. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study used and assessed how three cost-related considerations would influence the decision to participate in a hypothetical clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 3682 US adult respondents to the Health Information National Trends Survey MAIN MEASURES: Survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated associations between respondent characteristics and odds of reporting cost-related considerations as very influential to participation. KEY RESULTS: Among 3682 respondents, median age was 48 (IQR 33-61). Most were non-Hispanic White (60%), living comfortably or getting by on their income (74%), with ≥ 1 medical condition (61%). Over half (55%) of respondents reported at least one cost-related consideration as very influential to trial participation, including if usual care was not covered by insurance (reported by 42%), payment for participation (24%), or support for participation (24%). Respondents who were younger (18-34 vs. ≥ 75, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.3, 95% CI 2.3-8.1), more educated (high school vs.

A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models.

BACKGROUND: Reduction or elimination of inappropriate, ineffective, or potentially harmful healthcare services and public health programs can help to ensure limited resources are used effectively. Frameworks and models (FM) are valuable tools in conceptualizing and guiding the study of de-implementation. This scoping review sought to identify and characterize FM that can be used to study de-implementation as a phenomenon and identify gaps in the literature to inform future model development and application for research. METHODS: We searched nine databases and eleven journals from a broad array of disciplines (e.g., healthcare, public health, public policy) for de-implementation studies published between 1990 and June 2020. Two raters independently screened titles and abstracts, and then a pair of raters screened all full text records. We extracted information related to setting, discipline, study design, methodology, and FM characteristics from included studies. RESULTS: The final search yielded 1860 records, from which we screened 126 full text records. We extracted data from 27 articles containing 27 unique FM. Most FM (n = 21) were applicable to two or more levels of the Socio-Ecological Framework, and most commonly assessed constructs were at the organization level (n = 18). Most FM (n = 18) depicted a linear relationship between constructs, few depicted a more complex structure, such as a nested or cyclical relationship. Thirteen studies applied FM in empirical investigations of de-implementation, while 14 articles were commentary or review papers that included FM. CONCLUSION: De-implementation is a process studied in a broad array of disciplines, yet implementation science has thus far been limited in the integration of learnings from other fields. This review offers an overview of visual representations of FM that implementation researchers and practitioners can use to inform their work. Additional work is needed to test and refine existing FM and to determine the extent to which FM developed in one setting or for a particular topic can be applied to other contexts. Given the extensive availability of FM in implementation science, we suggest researchers build from existing FM rather than recreating novel FM. REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Demographic and Health Behavior Factors Associated With Clinical Trial Invitation and Participation in the United States.

Importance: Representative enrollment in clinical trials is critical to ensure equitable and effective translation of research to practice, yet disparities in clinical trial enrollment persist. Objective: To examine person-level factors associated with invitation to and participation in clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed responses from 3689 US adults who participated in the nationally representative Health Information National Trends Survey, collected February through June 2020 via mailed questionnaires. Exposures: Demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: History of invitation to and participation in a clinical trial, primary information sources, trust in information sources, and motives for participation in clinical trials were described. Respondent characteristics are presented as absolute numbers and weighted percentages. Associations between respondent demographic, clinical, and health behavior-related characteristics and clinical trial invitation and participation were estimated using survey-weighted logistic regression models. Results: The median (IQR) age of the 3689 respondents was 48 (33-61) years, and most were non-Hispanic White individuals (2063 [59%]; non-Hispanic Black, 452 [10%]; Hispanic, 521 [14%]), had more than a high school degree (2656 [68%]), were employed (1809 [58%]), and had at least 1 medical condition (2535 [61%]). Overall, 439 respondents (9%) had been invited to participate in any clinical trial. Respondents with increased odds of invitation were non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.13-3.02), had greater than a high school education compared with less than high school education (eg, ≥college degree: aOR, 4.84; 95% CI, 1.89-12.39), were single compared with married or living as married (aOR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.73), and had at least 1 medical condition compared to none (eg, 1 medical condition: aOR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.32-3.82). Respondents residing in rural vs urban areas had 77% decreased odds of invitation to a clinical trial (aOR 0.33; 95% CI 0.17-0.65). Of invited respondents, 199 (47%) participated. Compared with non-Hispanic White respondents, non-Hispanic Black respondents had 72% decreased odds of clinical trial participation (aOR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.09-0.87). Respondents most frequently reported "health care providers" as the first and most trusted source of clinical trial information (first source: 2297 [59%]; most trusted source: 2597 [70%]). The most frequently reported motives for clinical trials participation were "wanting to get better" (2294 [66%]) and the standard of care not being covered by insurance (1448 [41%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that invitation to and participation in clinical trials may differ by person-level demographic and clinical characteristics. Strategies toward increasing trial invitation and participation rates across diverse patient populations warrant further research to ensure equitable translation of clinical benefits from research to practice.

DeImplementing Ineffective and Low-Value Clinical Practices: Research and Practice Opportunities in Community Oncology Settings.

Patients, practitioners, and policy makers are increasingly concerned about the delivery of ineffective or low-value clinical practices in cancer care settings. Research is needed on how to effectively deimplement these types of practices from cancer care. In this commentary, we spotlight the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), a national network of community oncology practices, and elaborate on how it is an ideal infrastructure for conducting rigorous, real-world research on deimplementation. We describe key multilevel issues that affect deimplementation and also serve as a guidepost for developing strategies to drive deimplementation. We describe optimal study designs for testing deimplementation strategies and elaborate on how and why the NCORP network is uniquely positioned to conduct rigorous and impactful deimplementation trials. The number and diversity of affiliated community oncology care sites, coupled with the overall objective of improving cancer care delivery, make the NCORP an opportune infrastructure for advancing deimplementation research while simultaneously improving the care of millions of cancer patients nationwide.

Designing provider-focused implementation trials with purpose and intent: introducing the PRECIS-2-PS tool.

BACKGROUND: First articulated by Schwartz and Lellouch (1967), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be conceptualized along a continuum from more explanatory to more pragmatic. The purpose and intent of the former is to test interventions under ideal contexts, and the purpose and intent of the latter is to test interventions in real-world contexts. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) is a validated tool that helps researchers make decisions about the elements of the trial to match the overall purpose and intent of the trial along the continuum. The PRECIS-2 tool has guided the design of hundreds of RCTs. However, a few aspects of the tool would benefit from greater clarity, including its application to provider-focused implementation trials rather than patient-focused intervention trials. MAIN TEXT: We describe the newly developed PRECIS-2-Provider Strategies (PRECIS-2-PS) tool, an extension of the PRECIS-2 tool, which has been adapted for trials testing provider-focused strategies. We elaborate on nine domains that can make a provider-focused trial more explanatory or more pragmatic, including eligibility, recruitment, setting, implementation resources, flexibility of provider strategies, flexibility of intervention, data collection, primary outcome, and primary analysis. We detail the complementary roles that researchers and stakeholders play in the trial design phase, with implications for generalizability of trial results to the contexts in which they are intended to be applied. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECIS-2-PS tool is designed to help research and practice teams plan for provider-focused trials that reflect the overall intent and purpose of the trial. The tool has potential to help advance the science of provider-focused strategies across a range of trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the adoption, integration, and sustainability of provider-focused strategies outside the context of trials.

Evaluation of the Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. Web Portal.

CONTEXT: The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T.) Web portal was designed to ease access to data and evidence-based resources for cancer control practitioners and researchers focused on developing, implementing, and evaluating cancer control programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine usability, applicability, and opportunities to improve the P.L.A.N.E.T. Web portal after significant changes to the portal over time. DESIGN: The National Cancer Institute surveyed and interviewed cancer control professionals to assess factors influencing utilization of P.L.A.N.E.T. Data were collected from May 2017 to June 2018 via partner agencies, electronic publications, and online links. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics with χ test were used to analyze the quantitative data and examine the relationship among variables. Qualitative interviews further informed the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 724 participants surveyed, 51% were users of P.L.A.N.E.T., with the majority accessing P.L.A.N.E.T. within the last 6 months. Most users felt that P.L.A.N.E.T. effectively met their needs for accessing specific cancer data, identifying evidenced-based programs, and ascertaining details on various cancer topics. There were statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between users and nonusers of P.L.A.N.E.T., where users were more likely to have more experience in the cancer field, were older in age, and located in southern states. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that P.L.A.N.E.T. is seen as a viable and credible source for cancer control program planning and delivery. A reassessment of P.L.A.N.E.T.'s goals is warranted, which may support reaching out to new audiences, amplifying or removing underutilized resources, and adding additional resources and topics. Consideration for training and tutorials on P.L.A.N.E.T. would benefit partner agencies and build capacity for evidence-based program development.

Unpacking the complexities of de-implementing inappropriate health interventions.

De-implementing inappropriate health interventions is essential for minimizing patient harm, maximizing efficient use of resources, and improving population health. Research on de-implementation has expanded in recent years as it cuts across types of interventions, patient populations, health conditions, and delivery settings. This commentary explores unique aspects of de-implementing inappropriate interventions that differentiate it from implementing evidence-based interventions, including multi-level factors, types of action, strategies for de-implementation, outcomes, and unintended negative consequences. We highlight opportunities to continue to advance research on the de-implementation of inappropriate interventions in health care and public health.

Building internal capacity in pragmatic trials: a workshop for program scientists at the US National Cancer Institute.

BACKGROUND: Building capacity in research funding organizations to support the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials is an essential component of advancing biomedical and public health research. To date, efforts to increase the ability to design and carry out pragmatic trials have largely focused on training researchers. To complement these efforts, we developed an interactive workshop tailored to meet the roles and responsibilities of program scientists at the National Cancer Institute-the leading cancer research funding agency in the USA. The objectives of the workshop were to improve the understanding of pragmatic trials and enhance the capacity to distinguish between elements that make a trial more pragmatic or more explanatory among key programmatic staff. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of such a workshop. MAIN BODY: The workshop was developed to meet the needs of program scientists as researchers and stewards of research funds, which often includes promoting scientific initiatives, advising prospective applicants, collaborating with grantees, and creating training programs. The workshop consisted of presentations from researchers with expertise in the design and interpretation of trials across the explanatory-pragmatic continuum. Presentations were followed by interactive, small-group exercises to solidify participants' understanding of the purpose and conduct of these trials, which were tailored to attendees' areas of expertise across the cancer control continuum and designed to reflect their scope of work as program scientists at NCI. A total of 29 program scientists from the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division of Cancer Prevention participated; 19 completed a post-workshop evaluation. Attendees were very enthusiastic about the workshop: they reported improved knowledge, significant relevance of the material to their work, and increased interest in pragmatic trials across the cancer control continuum. CONCLUSION: Training program scientists at major biomedical research agencies who are responsible for developing funding opportunities and advising grantees is essential for increasing the quality and quantity of pragmatic trials. Together with workshops for other target audiences (e.g., academic researchers), this approach has the potential to shape the future of pragmatic trials and continue to generate more and better actionable evidence to guide decisions that are of critical importance to health care practitioners, policymakers, and patients.

The role of implementation science in improving distress assessment and management in oncology: a commentary on "Screening for psychosocial distress among patients with cancer: implications for clinical practice, healthcare policy, and dissemination to enhance cancer survivorship".

Despite considerable evidence that psychosocial interventions can effectively relieve distress in patients with cancer, many individuals who could benefit from these interventions do not receive them. A proposed solution to this problem is the establishment of programs in oncology settings that routinely screen for distress and refer patients for appropriate psychosocial care. This commentary addresses a review by Ehlers et al. that describes policies and procedures related to distress screening, summarizes prior research on this topic, and identifies key areas for future research. Among their major conclusions is the need for research to fill the gap in knowledge about how best to implement new distress screening programs as well as optimize the use and efficiency of existing programs. This commentary focuses on how the types of study methods, designs, and outcomes that are commonplace in implementation science to facilitate the integration of research into practice can be applied to distress screening programs. Priorities identified include designing and conducting pragmatic clinical trials, evaluating multilevel interventions, and using hybrid designs to simultaneously evaluate clinical effectiveness and barriers and facilitators of implementation. Use of these approaches holds considerable potential for developing an evidence base that can promote more widespread adoption of effective distress screening programs and inform further development of standards and policies related to the psychosocial care of patients with cancer.

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control.

PURPOSE: In 2015-2016, the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership provided technical assistance workshops to support 22 cancer coalitions in increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in their local communities. As national efforts continue to invest in providing technical assistance, there is a current gap in understanding its use as a strategy to accelerate implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technical assistance on the participants' knowledge, attitudes, and skills for implementing EBIs in their local context and enhancing state team collaboration. METHODS: Data were collected August-November 2017 using web-based questionnaires from 44 HPV workshop participants and 66 CRC workshop participants. RESULTS: Both HPV vaccination and CRC screening workshop participants reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to implementing EBIs in their local state context. Several participants reported increased abilities in communicating and coordinating with partners in their states and utilizing additional implementation strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake and CRC screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that providing technical assistance to members of comprehensive cancer control coalitions is useful in promoting collaborations and building capacity for implementing EBIs for cancer prevention and control.

Recommendations for Research and Practice to Improve Work Outcomes Among Cancer Survivors.

Major knowledge gaps limit the development and implementation of interventions to improve employment outcomes among people with cancer. To identify research priorities to improve employment outcomes after cancer, the National Cancer Institute sponsored the meeting "Evidence-Based Approaches for Optimizing Employment Outcomes among Cancer Survivors." This article describes research recommendations stemming from the meeting. At the patient level, longitudinal studies are needed to better understand how patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and their experiences at work shape employment outcomes. Interventions that mitigate the impact of cancer and its treatment on employment are critical. At the provider-level, future research is needed to characterize the extent to which physicians and other healthcare providers talk to their patients about employment concerns and how that information is used to inform care. Additionally, there is a need to test models of care delivery that support routine screening of employment concerns, the capture of employment outcomes in electronic health records, and the effective use of this information to improve care. At the employer level, evidence-based training programs are needed to prepare supervisors, managers, human resources staff, and occupational health professionals to address health issues in the workplace; and future interventions are needed to improve patient -employer communication and facilitate workplace accommodations. Importantly, research is needed that reflects the perspectives and priorities of patients and their families, providers and healthcare systems, and employers. Transdisciplinary partnerships and stakeholder engagement are essential to ensure that employment-focused interventions and policies are developed, implemented, and sustained in real-world healthcare delivery and workplace settings.

Studying de-implementation in health: an analysis of funded research grants.

BACKGROUND: Studying de-implementation-defined herein as reducing or stopping the use of a health service or practice provided to patients by healthcare practitioners and systems-has gained traction in recent years. De-implementing ineffective, unproven, harmful, overused, inappropriate, and/or low-value health services and practices is important for mitigating patient harm, improving processes of care, and reducing healthcare costs. A better understanding of the state-of-the-science is needed to guide future objectives and funding initiatives. To this end, we characterized de-implementation research grants funded by the United States (US) National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). METHODS: We used systematic methods to search, identify, and describe de-implementation research grants funded across all 27 NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs) and AHRQ from fiscal year 2000 through 2017. Eleven key terms and three funding opportunity announcements were used to search for research grants in the NIH Query, View and Report (QVR) system. Two coders identified eligible grants based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. A codebook was developed, pilot tested, and revised before coding the full grant applications of the final sample. RESULTS: A total of 1277 grants were identified through the QVR system; 542 remained after removing duplicates. After the multistep eligibility assessment and review process, 20 grant applications were coded. Many grants were funded by NIH (n = 15), with fewer funded by AHRQ, and a majority were funded between fiscal years 2015 and 2016 (n = 11). Grant proposals focused on de-implementing a range of health services and practices (e.g., medications, therapies, screening tests) across various health areas (e.g., cancer, cardiovascular disease) and delivery settings (e.g., hospitals, nursing homes, schools). Grants proposed to use a variety of study designs and research methods (e.g., experimental, observational, mixed methods) to accomplish study aims. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the systematic portfolio analysis of NIH- and AHRQ-funded research grants over the past 17 years, relatively few have focused on studying the de-implementation of ineffective, unproven, harmful, overused, inappropriate, and/or low-value health services and practices provided to patients by healthcare practitioners and systems. Strategies for raising the profile and growing the field of research on de-implementation are discussed.

Mapping the Growing Discipline of Dissemination and Implementation Science in Health.

BACKGROUND: The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in health has grown considerably in the past decade. Despite the potential for advancing the science, limited research has focused on mapping the field. METHODS: We administered an online survey to individuals in the D&I field to assess participants' demographics and expertise, as well as engagement with journals and conferences, publications, and grants. A combined roster-nomination method was used to collect data on participants' advice networks and collaboration networks; participants' motivations for choosing collaborators was also assessed. Frequency and descriptive statistics were used to characterize the overall sample; network metrics were used to characterize both networks. Among a sub-sample of respondents who were researchers, regression analyses identified predictors of two metrics of academic performance (i.e., publications and funded grants). RESULTS: A total of 421 individuals completed the survey, representing a 30.75% response rate of eligible individuals. Most participants were White (n = 343), female (n = 284, 67.4%), and identified as a researcher (n = 340, 81%). Both the advice and the collaboration networks displayed characteristics of a small world network. The most important motivations for selecting collaborators were aligned with advancing the science (i.e., prior collaborators, strong reputation, and good collaborators) rather than relying on human proclivities for homophily, proximity, and friendship. Among a sub-sample of 295 researchers, expertise (individual predictor), status (advice network), and connectedness (collaboration network) were significant predictors of both metrics of academic performance. CONCLUSIONS: Network-based interventions can enhance collaboration and productivity; future research is needed to leverage these data to advance the field.

Research on Skin Cancer-Related Behaviors and Outcomes in the NIH Grant Portfolio, 2000-2014: Skin Cancer Intervention Across the Cancer Control Continuum (SCI-3C).

Importance: The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer broadly identified research gaps, but specific objectives are needed to further behavioral intervention research. Objective: To review National Institute of Health (NIH) grants targeting skin cancer-related behaviors and relevant outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A portfolio analysis of the title, abstract, specific aims, and research plans of identified grant applications from 2000 to 2014 targeting skin cancer-related behaviors or testing behavioral intervention effects on cancer-relevant outcomes along the cancer continuum. Main Outcomes and Measures: Funding trends were compared along the cancer control continuum, with respect to investigator demographics and use of theory, technology, policy, and changes to environmental surroundings (built environment). Results: A total of 112 submitted applications met inclusion criteria; of these, 40 (35.7%) were funded, and 31 of the 40 were interventions. Comparing the 40 funded grants with the 72 unfunded grants, the overall success rates did not differ significantly between male (33.3%) and female (37.3%) investigators, nor did the frequency of R01 awards (36.7% and 28.1%, respectively). Among intervention awards, most (24 of 31) addressed prevention. Fewer awards targeted detection alone or in conjunction with prevention (3) or cancer survivorship (4), and no grant addressed emotional sequelae or adherence behavior related to diagnosis or treatment. Fewer than half of funded grants aimed for clinically related targets (eg, sunburn reduction). Use of theory and technology occurred in more than 75% of grants. However, the full capability of proposed technology was infrequently used, and rarely did constructs of the proposed behavior change theory clearly and comprehensively drive the intervention approach. Policy or environmental manipulation was present in all dissemination grants but was rarely used elsewhere, and 19.4% included policy implementation and 25.8% proposed changes in built environment. Conclusions and Relevance: Grant success rate in skin cancer-related behavioral science compares favorably to the overall NIH grant success rate (approximately 18%), and the success rate of male and female investigators was not statistically different. However, gaps exist in behavioral research addressing all points of the skin cancer control continuum, measuring interventions that hit clinically related targets, and leveraging technology, theory, and environmental manipulation to optimize intervention approach.