Action planning for building public health program sustainability: results from a group-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Public health programs are charged with implementing evidence-based interventions to support public health improvement; however, to achieve long-term population-based benefits, these interventions must be sustained. Empirical evidence suggests that program sustainability can be improved through training and technical assistance, but few resources are available to support public health programs in building capacity for sustainability. METHODS: This study sought to build capacity for sustainability among state tobacco control programs through a multiyear, group-randomized trial that developed, tested, and evaluated a novel Program Sustainability Action Planning Model and Training Curricula. Using Kolb's experiential learning theory, we developed this action-oriented training model to address the program-related domains proven to impact capacity for sustainability as outlined in the Program Sustainability Framework. We evaluated the intervention using a longitudinal mixed-effects model using Program Sustainability Assessment (PSAT) scores from three time points. The main predictors in our model included group (control vs intervention) and type of dosage (active and passive). Covariates included state-level American Lung Association Score (proxy for tobacco control policy environment) and percent of CDC-recommended funding (proxy for program resources). RESULTS: Twenty-three of the 24 state tobacco control programs were included in the analyses: 11 received the training intervention and 12 were control. Results of the longitudinal mixed-effects linear regression model, where the annual PSAT score was the outcome, showed that states in the intervention condition reported significantly higher PSAT scores. The effects of CDC-recommended funding and American Lung Association smoke-free scores (proxy for policy environment) were small but statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This study found that the Program Sustainability Action Planning Model and Training Curricula was effective in building capacity for sustainability. The training was most beneficial for programs that had made less policy progress than others, implying that tailored training may be most appropriate for programs possibly struggling to make progress. Finally, while funding had a small, statistically significant effect on our model, it virtually made no difference for the average program in our study. This suggests that other factors may be more or equally important as the level of funding a program receives. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT03598114. Registered on July 26, 2018.

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.

Action Planning for Building Program Sustainability: Results from a Group-Randomized Trial.

Background: Public health programs are charged with implementing evidence-based interventions to support public health improvement, however, to achieve long term population based benefit these interventions must be sustained. Empirical evidence suggests that program sustainability can be improved through training and technical assistance, but few resources are available to support public health programs in building capacity for sustainability. Methods: This study sought to build capacity for sustainability among state tobacco control programs through a multiyear, group-randomized trial that developed, tested, and evaluated a novel Program Sustainability Action Planning Model and Training Curricula. Using Kolb's experiential learning theory, we developed this action-oriented training model to address the program-related domains proven to impact capacity for sustainability as outlined in the Program Sustainability Framework. We evaluated the intervention using a longitudinal mixed-effects model using Program Sustainability Assessment (PSAT) scores from three time points. The main predictors in our model included group (control vs intervention) and type of dosage (active and passive). Covariates included state level American Lung Association score (proxy for tobacco control policy environment) and percent of CDC-recommended funding (proxy for program resources). Results: Twenty-three of the 24 state tobacco control programs were included in the analyses: 11 received the training intervention and 12 were control. Results of the longitudinal mixed-effects linear regression model, where the annual PSAT score was the outcome, showed that states in the intervention condition reported significantly higher PSAT scores. The effects for CDC-recommended funding and American Lung Association smoke-free scores (proxy for policy environment) were small but statistically significant. Conclusion: This study found that the Program Sustainability Action Planning Model and Training Curricula was effective in building capacity for sustainability. The training was most beneficial for programs that had made less policy progress than others, implying that tailored training may be most appropriate for programs possibly struggling to make progress. Finally, while funding had a small, statistically significant effect in our model, it virtually made no difference for the average program in our study. This suggests that other factors may be more or equally important as the level of funding a program receives. Trial registration: NCT03598114, Registered on July 26, 2018 (clnicaltrials.gov/NCT03598114).

Participatory Logic Modeling in a Multi-Site Initiative to Advance Implementation Science.

Background: It is increasingly being 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 used this approach in the context of multi-site initiatives. This article describes an instance where the funder and evaluator 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 (ISC 3 ), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Methods: The case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC 3 . 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 ISC 3 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 ISC 3 case study provides a positive example of 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.

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

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

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.

Facilitators of Multisector Collaboration for Delivering Cancer Control Interventions in Rural Communities: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Multisector collaboration is a widely promoted strategy to increase equitable availability, access, and use of healthy foods, safe places for physical activity, social supports, and preventive health care services. Yet fewer studies and resources exist for collaboration among governmental and nongovernmental agencies to address public problems in rural areas, despite an excess burden of risk factors for cancer morbidity and mortality. We aimed to learn about cancer prevention activities and collaboration facilitators among rural informal interagency networks. EVALUATION METHODS: In 2020, researchers conducted semistructured interviews with staff from rural public health and social services agencies, community health centers, and extension offices. Agency staff were from 5 service areas across 27 rural counties in Missouri and Illinois with high poverty rates and excess cancer risks and mortality. We conducted a thematic analysis to code interview transcripts and identify key themes. RESULTS: Exchanging information, cohosting annual or one-time events, and promoting other agencies' services and programs were the most commonly described collaborative activities among the 32 participants interviewed. Participants indicated a desire to improve collaborations by writing more grants together to codevelop ongoing prevention programs and further share resources. Participants expressed needs to increase community outreach, improve referral systems, and expand screenings. We identified 5 facilitator themes: commitment to address community needs, mutual willingness to collaborate, long-standing relationships, smaller community structures, and necessity of leveraging limited resources. Challenges included lack of funding and time, long travel distances, competing priorities, difficulty replacing staff in remote communities, and jurisdictional boundaries. Although the COVID-19 pandemic further limited staff availability for collaboration, participants noted benefits of remote collaborative meetings. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Rural areas need consistent funding and other resources to support health-improving multisector initiatives. Existing strengths found in the rural underresourced areas can facilitate multisector collaborations for cancer prevention, including long-standing relationships, small community structures, and the need to leverage limited resources.

The power of partnerships: state public health department multisector collaborations in major chronic disease programme areas in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Multisector collaboration between state public health departments (SHDs) and diverse community partners is increasingly recognized as important for promoting positive public health outcomes, addressing social determinants of health, and reducing health inequalities. This study investigates collaborations between SHDs in the United States and different types of organizations addressing chronic disease in and outside of the health sector. METHODS: SHD employees were randomly selected from the National Association of Chronic Disease Directors membership list for participation in an online survey. Participants were asked about their primary chronic disease work unit (cancer, obesity, tobacco, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and others), as well as their work unit collaborations (exchange of information/cooperation in activities) with organizations in health and non-health sectors. As a measure of the different organizations SHDs collaborated with in health and non-health sectors, a collaboration heterogeneity score for each programme area was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's post hoc tests were used to assess differences in collaborator heterogeneity between programme areas. RESULTS: A total of 574 participants were surveyed. Results indicated that the cancer programme area, along with diabetes and cardiovascular disease, had significantly less collaboration heterogeneity with organizations outside of the health sector compared to the obesity and tobacco programme areas. CONCLUSIONS: While collaborations with health sector organizations are commonly reported, public health departments can increase collaboration with sectors outside of health to more fully address chronic disease prevention.

Social determinants of health and cancer screening implementation and outcomes in the USA: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Improving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. DISCUSSION: By completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021276582 .

Mapping the Lay of the Land: Using Interactive Network Analytic Tools for Collaboration in Rural Cancer Prevention and Control.

BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality rates in the United States are higher in rural than urban areas, especially for colorectal cancer. Modifiable cancer risks (e.g., tobacco use, obesity) are more prevalent among U.S. rural than urban residents. Social network analyses are common, yet rural informal collaborative networks for cancer prevention and control and practitioner uses of network findings are less well understood. METHODS: In five service areas in rural Missouri and Illinois, we conducted a network survey of informal multisector networks among agencies that address cancer risk (N = 152 individuals). The survey asked about contact, collaborative activities, and referrals. We calculated descriptive network statistics and disseminated network visualizations with rural agencies through infographics and interactive Network Navigator platforms. We also collected feedback on uses of network findings from agency staff (N = 14). RESULTS: Service areas had more connections (average degree) for exchanging information than for more time-intensive collaborative activities of co-developing and sustaining ongoing services and programs, and co-developing and sharing resources. On average, collaborative activities were not dependent on just a few agencies to bridge gaps to hold networks together. Users found the network images and information useful for identifying gaps, planning which relationships to establish or enhance to strengthen certain collaborative activities and cross-referrals, and showing network strengths to current and potential funders. CONCLUSIONS: Rural informal cancer prevention and control networks in this study are highly connected and largely decentralized. IMPACT: Disseminating network findings help ensure usefulness to rural health and social service practitioners who address cancer risks.

Collaboration networks of the implementation science centers for cancer control: a social network analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member's access to the network such as one's implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination. RESULTS: Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties' 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members' level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members. CONCLUSIONS: Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.

Place Is Power: Investing in Communities as a Systemic Leverage Point to Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities by Race.

Racial disparities in breast cancer present a vexing and complex challenge for public health. A diverse array of factors contributes to disparities in breast cancer incidence and outcomes, and, thus far, efforts to improve racial equity have yielded mixed results. Systems theory offers a model that is well-suited to addressing complex issues. In particular, the concept of a systemic leverage point offers a clue that may assist researchers, policymakers, and interventionists in formulating innovative and comprehensive approaches to eliminating racial disparities in breast cancer. Naming systemic racism as a fundamental cause of disparities, we use systems theory to identify residential segregation as a key leverage point and a driver of racial inequities across the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. We call on researchers, policymakers, and interventionists to use a systems-informed, community-based participatory approach, aimed at harnessing the power of place, to engage directly with community stakeholders in coordinating efforts to prevent breast cancer, and work toward eliminating disparities in communities of color.

Applying implementation science to improve care for familial hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Improving care of individuals with familial hypercholesteremia (FH) is reliant on the synthesis of evidence-based guidelines and their subsequent implementation into clinical care. This review describes implementation strategies, defined as methods to improve translation of evidence into FH care, that have been mapped to strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation. RECENT FINDINGS: A search using the term 'familial hypercholesterolemia' returned 1350 articles from November 2018 to July 2021. Among these, there were 153 articles related to improving FH care; 1156 were excluded and the remaining 37 were mapped to the ERIC compilation of strategies: assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators [9], develop and organize quality monitoring systems [14], create new clinical teams [2], facilitate relay of clinical data to providers [4], and involve patients and family members [8]. There were only 8 of 37 studies that utilized an implementation science theory, model, or framework and two that explicitly addressed health disparities or equity. SUMMARY: The mapping of the studies to implementation strategies from the ERIC compilation provides a framework for organizing current strategies to improve FH care. This study identifies potential areas for the development of implementation strategies to target unaddressed aspects of FH care.

A systematic review of school health policy measurement tools: implementation determinants and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Governments in some countries or states/provinces mandate school-based policies intended to improve the health and well-being of primary and secondary students and in some cases the health of school staff. Examples include mandating a minimum time spent per week in programmed physical activity, mandating provision of healthy foods and limiting fat content of school meals, and banning tobacco products or use on school campuses. Although school health researchers have studied whether schools, districts, or states/provinces are meeting requirements, it is unclear to what extent implementation processes and determinants are assessed. The purposes of the present systematic review of quantitative measures of school policy implementation were to (1) identify quantitative school health policy measurement tools developed to measure implementation at the school, district, or state/provincial levels; (2) describe the policy implementation outcomes and determinants assessed and identify the trends in measurement; and (3) assess pragmatic and psychometric properties of identified implementation measures to understand their quality and suitability for broader application. METHODS: Peer-reviewed journal articles published 1995-2020 were included if they (1) had multiple-item quantitative measures of school policy implementation and (2) addressed overall wellness, tobacco, physical activity, nutrition, obesity prevention, or mental health/bullying/social-emotional learning. The final sample comprised 86 measurement tools from 67 peer-review articles. We extracted study characteristics, such as psychometric and pragmatic measure properties, from included articles based on three frameworks: (1) Implementation Outcomes Framework, (2) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and (3) Policy Implementation Determinants Framework. RESULTS: Most implementation tools were developed to measure overall wellness policies which combined multiple policy topics (n = 35, 40%) and were in survey form (n = 75, 87%). Fidelity was the most frequently prevalent implementation outcome (n = 70, 81%), followed by adoption (n = 32, 81%). The implementation determinants most assessed were readiness for implementation, including resources (n = 43, 50%), leadership (n = 42, 49%), and policy communication (n = 41, 48%). Overall, measures were low-cost and had easy readability. However, lengthy tools and lack of reported validity/reliability data indicate low transferability. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science can contribute to more complete and rigorous assessment of school health policy implementation processes, which can improve implementation strategies and ultimately the intended health benefits. Several high-quality measures of implementation determinants and implementation outcomes can be applied to school health policy implementation assessment. Dissemination and implementation science researchers can also benefit from measurement experiences of school health researchers.

Electronic clinical decision support for children with minor head trauma and intracranial injuries: a sociotechnical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current management of children with minor head trauma (MHT) and intracranial injuries is not evidence-based and may place some children at risk of harm. Evidence-based electronic clinical decision support (CDS) for management of these children may improve patient safety and decrease resource use. To guide these efforts, we evaluated the sociotechnical environment impacting the implementation of electronic CDS, including workflow and communication, institutional culture, and hardware and software infrastructure, among other factors. METHODS: Between March and May, 2020 semi-structured qualitative focus group interviews were conducted to identify sociotechnical influences on CDS implementation. Physicians from neurosurgery, emergency medicine, critical care, and pediatric general surgery were included, along with information technology specialists. Participants were recruited from nine health centers in the United States. Focus group transcripts were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. The final themes were then cross-referenced with previously defined sociotechnical dimensions. RESULTS: We included 28 physicians and four information technology specialists in seven focus groups (median five participants per group). Five physicians were trainees and 10 had administrative leadership positions. Through inductive thematic analysis, we identified five primary themes: (1) clinical impact; (2) stakeholders and users; (3) tool content; (4) clinical practice integration; and (5) post-implementation evaluation measures. Participants generally supported using CDS to determine an appropriate level-of-care for these children. However, some had mixed feelings regarding how the tool could best be used by different specialties (e.g. use by neurosurgeons versus non-neurosurgeons). Feedback from the interviews helped refine the tool content and also highlighted potential technical and workflow barriers to address prior to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key factors impacting the implementation of electronic CDS for children with MHT and intracranial injuries. These results have informed our implementation strategy and may also serve as a template for future efforts to implement health information technology in a multidisciplinary, emergency setting.

Expanding Implementation Research to Prevent Chronic Diseases in Community Settings.

Chronic disease prevention continues to be inadequate, overall and in achieving health equity, in spite of the many evidence-based practices and policies (EBPPs) available to address risk behaviors such as unhealthful eating, lack of physical activity, and tobacco use. Although clinical settings are needed for EBPPs that involve medical procedures such as immunization or early detection, dissemination of EBPPs can be effective in a variety of settings such as schools and childcare centers, worksites, social service organizations, and religious organizations. More implementation research is needed to meet challenges of effective application of EBPPs in such community settings, in which primary missions, capacity, cultures, and values do not focus on health services delivery. To address health equity, consideration of social and economic contexts of people reached in these settings is essential. This review presents lessons learned from past studies to guide future implementation research and practice across diverse settings and geographies.

Building the Next Generation of Researchers: Mentored Training in Dissemination and Implementation Science.

PROBLEM: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science provides the tools needed to close the gap between known intervention strategies and their effective application. The authors report on the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program-a D&I training program for postdoctoral or early-career cancer prevention and control scholars. APPROACH: MT-DIRC was a 2-year training institute in which fellows attended 2 annual Summer Institutes and other conferences and received didactic, group, and individual instruction; individualized mentoring; and other supports (e.g., pilot funding). A quasi-experimental design compared changes in 3 areas: mentoring, skills, and network composition. To evaluate mentoring and D&I skills, data from fellows on their mentors' mentoring competencies, their perspectives on the importance of and satisfaction with mentoring priority areas, and their self-rated skills in D&I competency domains were collected. Network composition data were collected from faculty and fellows for 3 core social network domains: contact, mentoring, and collaboration. Paired t tests (mentoring), linear mixed models (skills), and descriptive analyses (network composition) were performed. OUTCOMES: Mentors were rated as highly competent across all mentoring competencies, and each mentoring priority area showed reductions in gaps between satisfaction and importance between the 6 and 18 months post-first Summer Institute. Fellows' self-rated skills in D&I competencies improved significantly in all domains over time (range: 42.5%-52.9% increase from baseline to 18 months post-first Summer Institute). Mentorship and collaboration networks grew over time, with the highest number of collaboration network ties for scholarly manuscripts (n = 199) in 2018 and for research projects (n = 160) in 2019. NEXT STEPS: Building on study findings and existing literature, mentored training of scholars is an important approach for building D&I skills and networks, and thus to better applying the vast amount of available intervention evidence to benefit cancer control.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)-Phase 2.

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC) is part of California Breast Cancer Research Program's (CBCRP) Initiative strategic priority to disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based primary prevention interventions. CLASP-BC is informed by six years of funded program dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and evaluation conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) through its Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP). In its second phase, CLASP-BC will fund multi-sector, multi-jurisdictional initiatives that integrate the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from practice and policy to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer and develop viable and sustainable infrastructure models for primary prevention breast cancer programs and research evidence implementation. Applications will be solicited from research, practice, policy, and community teams to address one or more of the intervention goals for the 23 risk factors identified in Paths to Prevention: The California Breast Cancer Primary Prevention Plan (P2P), expanding upon existing primary prevention efforts into two or more California jurisdictions, focused on disadvantaged, high risk communities with unmet social needs. The lessons learned from CLASP-BC will be widely disseminated within the participating jurisdictions, across California and, where applicable, to jurisdictions outside the state.

Looking beyond the Lamppost: Population-Level Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer.

Although innovative and impactful interventions are necessary for the primary prevention of breast cancer, the factors influencing program adoption, implementation, and sustainment are key, yet remain poorly understood. Insufficient attention has been paid to the primary prevention of breast cancer in state and national cancer plans, limiting the impact of evidence-based interventions on population health. This commentary highlights the state of primary prevention of breast cancer and gaps in the current literature. As a way to enhance the reach and adoption of cancer prevention policies and programs, the utility of dissemination and implementation (D&I) science is highlighted. Examples of how D&I could be applied to study policies and programs for chronic disease prevention are described, in addition to needs for future research. Through application of D&I science and a strong focus on health equity, a clearer understanding of contextual factors influencing the success of prevention programs will be achieved, ultimately impacting population health.

Actual Causes of Death in Relation to Media, Policy, and Funding Attention: Examining Public Health Priorities.

Despite numerous public health advancements over the last century, we continue to under-invest in prevention and public health efforts. As a result, one of the most challenging aspects of public health is prioritizing the use of limited resources. Building on the foundation of previous researchers, the goal of this exploratory study was to provide current estimates for the actual causes of death, media attention, policy focus, and research funding in the United States. In addition, we sought to calculate and compare media attention, policy attention, and research funding trends to better assess the nation's prioritization of health issues. Using a systematic approach, we searched available databases, including Media Cloud, Nexis Uni, Congress.gov, and the Department of Health and Human Services Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System from January 1, 2010-December 31, 2019 and compared how the actual causes of death in the United States align with health-related media attention, policy attention, and federal spending. Overall, our findings suggest that our priorities are not well-aligned with the actual causes of death. Certain actual causes appear to be consistently misaligned across media, legislative, and financial sectors (e.g., tobacco). This work highlights the importance of multiple strategies-media coverage, national legislation, and government spending-as indicators of public health attention and priorities. These results may inform discussions about how to best allocate U.S. public health resources to better align with the actual causes of death.