Climate Change Harm Perception Among U.S. Adults in the NCI Health Information National Trends Survey, 2022.

PURPOSE: To examine associations between 1) sociodemographics and 2) trust in health information sources with climate change harm perception. METHODS: Weighted adjusted logistic regression models examined correlates of climate change harm perception (harm vs no harm/don't know) among a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (2022, n = 5585). RESULTS: Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults believed climate change will harm their health. College education (vs high school or less) (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.2) and having greater trust in doctors (AOR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2, 1.7), scientists (aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.6, 2.0), and government health agencies (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.5, 1.9) for health information were associated with believing climate change harms health. Conversely, greater trust in religious organizations was associated with 16% lower odds of believing climate change harms health (95% CI .74, .94). CONCLUSIONS: Climate change harm perception varied by sociodemographics and trust in health information source. Health communication delivered via alternative and diverse channels could expand the reach of climate and health messaging and ultimately increase public awareness and support for measures to mitigate the health impacts of climate change.

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.

Climate Change and Cancer.

Climate change, the greatest threat to human health of our time, has implications for cancer control efforts throughout the cancer care continuum. The direct and indirect impacts of climate change on cancer risk, access to care, and outcomes are numerous and compounding, yet many oncology professionals might not be familiar with the strong connection between climate change and cancer. Thus, to increase awareness of this topic among cancer researchers, practitioners, and other professionals, this commentary discusses the links between climate change and cancer prevention and control, provides examples of adaptation and mitigation efforts, and describes opportunities and resources for future research.

Perspectives on the future of dissemination and implementation research in oral and craniofacial sciences.

Dissemination and implementation science is a field of research that promotes the adoption and maintenance of evidence-based interventions in healthcare delivery and community settings and seeks to understand the processes by which such adoption and maintenance occur. While dissemination and implementation science is an established field in health services research, it is relatively new and making inroads in dental, oral and craniofacial research. This article summarizes the proceedings from a scientific panel on 'Dissemination and Implementation Science for Oral and Craniofacial Health' that was held during the international Behavioral and Social Oral Health Sciences Summit. The panelists were four experts on dissemination and implementation science in dental and non-dental academic settings in the United States and Scotland, with affiliations ranging from schools of dentistry and public health to the National Institutes of Health and a healthcare system with integrated dental services. The panel discussion addressed how dissemination and implementation science can be used to further oral health research. The narrative report presented here aims to describe the panelists' reflections and insights on their current initiatives in dissemination and implementation research to inform future research endeavors within the oral and craniofacial sciences. Specifically, this article focuses on six discussion topics: (1) how organizational determinants can serve as facilitators or barriers to the implementation of evidence-based dental practice; (2) how dentistry can 'de-implement' practices that are not effective; (3) how implementation science can support the delivery of evidence-based dental practice using adaptation; (4) how to get started in implementation science; (5) how the broader environment can support large-scale implementation efforts; and (6) how oral and craniofacial science is well suited for advancing dissemination and implementation research.

Advancing environmental health sciences through implementation science.

BACKGROUND: Environmental health sciences have identified and characterized a range of environmental exposures and their associated risk for disease, as well as informed the development of interventions, including recommendations, guidelines, and policies for mitigating exposure. However, these interventions only serve to mitigate exposures and prevent disease if they are effectively disseminated, adopted, implemented, and sustained. MAIN BODY: Numerous studies have documented the enormous time lag between research and practice, noting that dissemination and implementation are not passive processes but rely on active and intentional strategies. Implementation science seeks to build the knowledge base for understanding strategies to effectively disseminate and implement evidence and evidence-based interventions, and thus, bridge the research-to-practice gap. CONCLUSION: Environmental health researchers are well positioned to advance health promotion and disease prevention by incorporating implementation science into their work. This article describes the rationale for and key components of implementation science and articulates opportunities to build upon existing efforts to advance environmental health supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Institutes of Health broadly.

Advancing climate change health adaptation through implementation science.

To date, there are few examples of implementation science studies that help guide climate-related health adaptation. Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the adoption and integration of evidence-based tools, interventions, and policies into practice to improve population health. These studies can provide the needed empirical evidence to prioritise and inform implementation of health adaptation efforts. This Personal View discusses five case studies that deployed disease early warning systems around the world. These cases studies illustrate challenges to deploying early warning systems and guide recommendations for implementation science approaches to enhance future research. We propose theory-informed approaches to understand multilevel barriers, design strategies to overcome those barriers, and analyse the ability of those strategies to advance the uptake and scale-up of climate-related health interventions. These findings build upon previous theoretical work by grounding implementation science recommendations and guidance in the context of real-world practice, as detailed in the case studies.

Role of Local Evidence in Transferring Evidence-Based Interventions to Low- and Middle-Income Country Settings: Application to Global Cancer Prevention and Control.

PURPOSE: Although the global burden of cancer falls increasingly on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), much of the evidence for cancer prevention and control comes from high-income countries and may not be directly applicable to LMIC settings. In this paper, we focus on the following question: When the majority of the evidence supporting an evidence-based intervention or implementation strategy comes from high-income countries, what local, contextual evidence is needed when transferring and adapting an intervention or strategy to a specific LMIC setting? METHODS: We draw on an existing framework (the Population, Intervention, Environment, Transfer-T process model) for assessing transferability of interventions between distinct settings and apply the model to two case studies as learning examples involving implementation of tobacco use treatment guidelines and self sampling for human papillomavirus DNA in cervical cancer screening. RESULTS: These two case studies illustrate how researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and consumers may approach the need for local evidence from different perspectives and with different priorities. As uses and expectations around local evidence may be different for different groups, aligning these priorities through multistakeholder engagement in which all parties participate in defining the questions and cocreating the solutions is critical, along with promoting standardized reporting of contextual factors. CONCLUSION: Local, contextual evidence can be important for both researchers and practitioners, and its absence may hinder translation of research and implementation efforts across different settings. However, it is essential for researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders to be able to clearly articulate the type of data needed and why it is important. In particular, where resources are limited, evidence generation should be prioritized to address real needs and gaps in knowledge.

Colliding Epidemics: Research Gaps and Implementation Science Opportunities for Tobacco Use and HIV/AIDS in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Introduction: Tobacco use is a leading cause of cancer death among people living with HIV (PLWH) worldwide, and smoking prevalence tends to be higher among PLWH. The burden of both HIV/AIDS and tobacco use is increasingly concentrated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where resources to address these challenges are often limited. However, there has been limited effort to date to integrate tobacco cessation into HIV programs in LMICs. Methods: We searched the literature (searching was conducted between October 1 and December 31, 2020) using PubMed including search terms "tobacco" and "HIV" and "cessation" over the past ten years (searching for articles published between December 1, 2010, and December 1, 2020) to identify original research studies on tobacco cessation interventions conducted in LMICs for PLWH. We also conducted an analysis of NCI-funded research grants on tobacco cessation and HIV awarded during fiscal years 2010 to 2020. Results and Discussion. Existing evidence suggests that conventional tobacco cessation treatments may be less effective among PLWH. Moreover, while substantial evidence exists to support a range of cessation interventions, most of this evidence comes from HICs and is only partly applicable to the evolving social, economic, and cultural climate of many LMICs. There is an urgent need to develop, adapt, and implement effective tobacco control and cessation interventions targeted to PLWH in LMICs, as well as to generate evidence from these settings. Implementation science provides tools develop and test strategies to overcome barriers and to integrate and scale up cessation services within existing HIV treatment settings. Conclusion: There is a unique opportunity to address HIV and tobacco use in a coordinated way in LMICs by integrating evidence-based tobacco cessation into HIV programs.

The "case" for case studies: why we need high-quality examples of global implementation research.

Rigorous and systematic documented examples of implementation research in global contexts can be a valuable resource and help build research capacity. In the context of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a need for practical examples of how to conduct implementation studies. To address this gap, Fogarty's Center for Global Health Studies in collaboration with the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and the National Cancer Institute is commissioning a collection of implementation science case studies in LMICs that describe key components of conducting implementation research, including how to select, adapt, and apply implementation science models, theories, and frameworks to these settings; develop and test implementation strategies; and evaluate implementation processes and outcomes. The case studies describe implementation research in various disease areas in LMICs around the world. This commentary highlights the value of case study methods commonly used in law and business schools as a source of "thick" (i.e., context-rich) description and a teaching tool for global implementation researchers. It addresses the independent merit of case studies as an evaluation approach for disseminating high-quality research in a format that is useful to a broad range of stakeholders. This commentary finally describes an approach for developing high-quality case studies of global implementation research, in order to be of value to a broad audience of researchers and practitioners.

Revisiting time to translation: implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in cancer control.

PURPOSE: Previous studies estimate translation of research evidence into practice takes 17 years. However, this estimate is not specific to cancer control evidence-based practices (EBPs), nor do these studies evaluate variation in the translational process. We examined the translational pathway of cancer control EBPs. METHODS: We selected five cancer control EBPs where data on uptake were readily available. Years from landmark publication to clinical guideline issuance to implementation, defined as 50% uptake, were measured. The translational pathway for each EBP was mapped and an average total time across EBPs was calculated. RESULTS: Five cancer control EBPs were included: mammography, clinicians' advice to quit smoking, colorectal cancer screening, HPV co-testing, and HPV vaccination. Time from publication to implementation ranged from 13 to 21 years, averaging 15 years. Time from publication to guideline issuance ranged from 3 to 17 years, and from guideline issuance to implementation, - 4 to 12 years. Clinician's advice to quit smoking, HPV co-testing, and HPV vaccination were most rapidly implemented; colorectal cancer screening and mammography were slowest to implement. CONCLUSION: The average time to implementation was 15 years for the five EBPs we evaluated, a marginal improvement from prior findings. Although newer EBPs such as HPV vaccination and HPV co-testing were faster to implement than other EBPs, continued efforts in implementation science to speed research to practice are needed.

Dissemination and Implementation Research at the National Cancer Institute: A Review of Funded Studies (2006-2019) and Opportunities to Advance the Field.

BACKGROUND: To ensure investment in cancer research reaches populations who can benefit, the NCI has funded implementation science grants since the Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (DIRH) funding opportunities launched in 2006. We analyzed NCI-funded DIRH grants to provide a snapshot of implementation science conducted across the cancer care continuum and highlight areas ripe for exploration. METHODS: NCI-funded DIRH grants between fiscal years 2006 and 2019 were identified using the iSearch database. Two coders classified each grant by topic, populations studied, intervention and setting characteristics, strategies tested, study designs and methods used, and outcomes measured. RESULTS: Seventy-one grants were awarded addressing cancer prevention (n = 33), screening (n = 33), diagnosis (n = 4), treatment (n = 9), and/or survivorship (n = 11). Colorectal (n = 20), breast (n = 15), and cervical (n = 11) were the most studied cancers. Most grants focused on delivery of guidelines (n = 36) or behavioral change interventions (n = 18) in health care settings (n = 47), studying implementation processes (n = 37) and/or testing implementation strategies (n = 43) using experimental (n = 35) and quasi-experimental (n = 6) designs. Few studied sustainability (n = 7), scale-up (n = 2), deimplementation (n = 4), measure development (n = 6), or policy-level implementation (n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: Current funding suggests researchers are studying implementation of cancer control interventions across the care continuum. However, research gaps remain in strategies for sustainability, scale-up, and deimplementation. More emphasis is needed on cancer treatment and survivorship. Additional focus on policy implementation and measure development is warranted. IMPACT: Understanding the breadth of NCI-funded implementation science can inform future efforts to build the knowledge base on how to improve dissemination and implementation of evidence in cancer control.

Ensuring the Value of Cancer Research: Opportunities in Implementation Science.

Implementation science is the study of methods to ensure the uptake and integration of evidence-based interventions in cancer control. Three key approaches to effective implementation include multilevel approaches, stakeholder engagement, and sustainability. This commentary describes the use and benefits of implementation science as well as opportunities for cancer researchers.

Adapting and Operationalizing the RE-AIM Framework for Implementation Science in Environmental Health: Clean Fuel Cooking Programs in Low Resource Countries.

Introduction: The use of models and frameworks to design and evaluate strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based interventions is a foundational element of implementation science. To date, however, evaluative implementation science frameworks such as Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) have not been widely employed to examine environmental health interventions. We take advantage of a unique opportunity to utilize and iteratively adapt the RE-AIM framework to guide NIH-funded case studies of the implementation of clean cooking fuel programs in eleven low- and middle-income countries. Methods: We used existing literature and expert consultation to translate and iteratively adapt the RE-AIM framework across several stages of the NIH Clean Cooking Implementation Science case study project. Checklists and templates to guide investigators were developed at each stage. Results: The RE-AIM framework facilitated identification of important emerging issues across this set of case studies, in particular highlighting the fact that data associated with certain important outcomes related to health and welfare are chronically lacking in clean fuel programs. Monitoring of these outcomes should be prioritized in future implementation efforts. As RE-AIM was not originally designed to evaluate household energy interventions, employing the framework required adaptation. Specific adaptations include the broadening of Effectiveness to encompass indicators of success toward any stated programmatic goal, and expansion of Adoption to include household-level uptake of technology. Conclusions: The RE-AIM implementation science framework proved to be a useful organizing schema for 11 case studies of clean fuel cooking programs, in particular highlighting areas requiring emphasis in future research and evaluation efforts. The iterative approach used here to adapt an implementation science framework to a specific programmatic goal may be of value to other multi-country program efforts, such as those led by international development agencies. The checklists and templates developed for this project are publicly available for others to use and/or further modify.

Informing real-world practice with real-world evidence: the value of PRECIS-2.

Real-world evidence is needed to inform real-world practice. Pragmatic controlled trials are intended to provide such evidence by assessing the effectiveness of medicines and other interventions in real-world settings, as opposed to explanatory trials that assess efficacy in highly controlled settings. Dal-Ré and colleagues (BMC Med 16:49, 2018) recently performed a literature review of studies published between 2014 and 2017 to assess the degree to which studies that self-identified as pragmatic were truly so. The authors found that over one-third of randomized controlled trials of drugs and biologics that were self-labeled as pragmatic used placebo controls (as opposed to usual care), tested medicines before licensing, or were conducted in a single site. Further, they proposed that, in order to improve the reliability of the 'pragmatic' label, investigators should assess their trials using the PRECIS-2 tool upon submission to funders, ethics boards, or journals. We appreciate the value of PRECIS-2 as an indicator to assess the pragmatic versus explanatory features in a trial, and we herein highlight the potential challenges and opportunities that may arise with its systematic and widespread use.

Assessment of thyroid cancer risk associated with radiation dose from personal diagnostic examinations in a cohort study of US radiologic technologists, followed 1983-2014.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether personal medical diagnostic procedures over life, but particularly those associated with exposure in adulthood, were associated with increased thyroid cancer risk. DESIGN: Participants from the US Radiologic Technologists Study, a large, prospective cohort, were followed from the date of first mailed questionnaire survey completed during 1983-1989 to the earliest date of self-reported diagnosis of thyroid cancer or of any other cancer than non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) in any of three subsequent questionnaires up to the last in 2012-2014. SETTING: US nationwide, occupational cohort. PARTICIPANTS: US radiologic technologists with exclusion of: those who reported a previous cancer apart from NMSC on the first questionnaire; those who reported a cancer with an unknown date of diagnosis on any of the questionnaires; and those who did not respond to both the first questionnaire and at least one subsequent questionnaire. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: We used Cox proportional hazards models with age as timescale to compute HRs and 95% CI for thyroid cancer in relation to cumulative 5-year lagged diagnostic thyroid dose. RESULTS: There were 414 self-reported thyroid cancers (n=275 papillary) in a cohort of 76 415 persons. Cumulative thyroid dose was non-significantly positively associated with total (excess relative risk/Gy=2.29 (95% CI -0.91 to 7.01, p=0.19)) and papillary thyroid cancer (excess relative risk/Gy=4.15 (95% CI -0.39, 11.27, p=0.08)) risk. These associations were not modified by age at, or time since, exposure and were independent of occupational exposure. CONCLUSION: Our study provides weak evidence that thyroid dose from diagnostic radiation procedures over the whole of life, in particular associated with exposure in adulthood, influences adult thyroid cancer risk.

Occupational radiation exposure and thyroid cancer incidence in a cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists, 1983-2013.

Although childhood exposure to ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for thyroid cancer, the risk associated with adulthood exposure remains unclear. We prospectively examined the association between cumulative, low-to-moderate dose occupational radiation exposure to the thyroid and thyroid cancer incidence in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists cohort. The study included 89,897 members who completed at least two of four mailed questionnaires and were cancer-free at the time of the first questionnaire. Cumulative occupational thyroid radiation dose (mean = 57 mGy, range = 0-1,600 mGy) was estimated based on self-reported work histories, historical data and, during the years 1960-1997, 783,000 individual film badge measurements. During follow-up, we identified 476 thyroid cancer cases. We used Poisson regression to estimate excess relative risk of thyroid cancer per 100 milliGray (ERR/100 mGy) absorbed dose to the thyroid gland. After adjusting for attained age, sex, birth year, body mass index and pack-years smoked, we found no association between thyroid dose and thyroid cancer risk (ERR/100 mGy = -0.05, 95% CI <-0.10, 0.34). In this large cohort study of radiologic technologists, protracted, low-to-moderate dose ionizing radiation exposure to the thyroid gland in adulthood was not associated with an increased risk of thyroid cancer.

Opportunities for Epidemiologists in Implementation Science: A Primer.

The field of epidemiology has been defined as the study of the spread and control of disease. However, epidemiology frequently focuses on studies of etiology and distribution of disease at the cost of understanding the best ways to control disease. Moreover, only a small fraction of scientific discoveries are translated into public health practice, and the process from discovery to translation is exceedingly slow. Given the importance of translational science, the future of epidemiologic training should include competency in implementation science, whose goal is to rapidly move evidence into practice. Our purpose in this paper is to provide epidemiologists with a primer in implementation science, which includes dissemination research and implementation research as defined by the National Institutes of Health. We describe the basic principles of implementation science, highlight key components for conducting research, provide examples of implementation studies that encompass epidemiology, and offer resources and opportunities for continued learning. There is a clear need for greater speed, relevance, and application of evidence into practice, programs, and policies and an opportunity to enable epidemiologists to conduct research that not only will inform practitioners and policy-makers of risk but also will enhance the likelihood that evidence will be implemented.

An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation.

The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. This article is one product of a design workgroup that was formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. This article emphasizes randomized and nonrandomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.