Key Informants' Perceptions of Health Equity and Racial Justice Impacts of the 2019 Massachusetts An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control.

INTRODUCTION: The Massachusetts legislature passed An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control in November 2019 to restrict retail sales of flavored commercially manufactured tobacco products including menthol products, increase penalties for violating the law's provisions, and provide health insurance coverage for tobacco treatment. AIMS AND METHODS: This study explores key informants' perceptions of intended and unintended impacts of implementation of the 2019 Massachusetts statewide law through a health equity and racial justice lens. We conducted in-depth interviews with 25 key informants from three key informant groups (public health officials and advocates, clinicians, and school staff) between March 2021 and April 2022. Using deductive codes on unintended impacts of the implementation of the law's policies, we conducted a focused analysis to identify impacts that were perceived and observed by informants from different key informant groups. RESULTS: Perceived or observed impacts of the law were identified across multiple levels by key informants and included concerns related to three broad themes: 1) intended impacts on health equity and racial justice, 2) ongoing availability of restricted products undermining the intended impact of the law, and 3) inequitable targeting by the policies and enforcement among communities of color. CONCLUSIONS: Future evaluation is needed to assess the intended and unintended impacts of implementation of the Massachusetts law to maximize the potential of the policies to reduce tobacco-related health disparities. We discuss implications and recommendations for achieving a national policy and equitable enforcement of flavored tobacco sales restrictions. IMPLICATIONS: This qualitative study among 25 key informants including public health and tobacco control advocates, clinicians, and school staff obtained perspectives of intended and unintended health equity and racial justice impacts of the 2019 Massachusetts An Act Modernizing Tobacco Control. Findings and recommendations from this study can inform monitoring efforts to assess the law's impacts in Massachusetts and the adoption of similar flavored tobacco sales restrictions and other tobacco control policies in other states to maximize the health equity benefits and minimize unintended impacts.

A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19.

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

Pilot trial results of D-HOMES: a behavioral-activation based intervention for diabetes medication adherence and psychological wellness among people who have been homeless.

Introduction: People living with type 2 diabetes who experience homelessness face a myriad of barriers to engaging in diabetes self-care behaviors that lead to premature complications and death. This is exacerbated by high rates of comorbid mental illness, substance use disorder, and other physical health problems. Despite strong evidence to support lay health coach and behavioral activation, little research has effectively engaged people living with type 2 diabetes who had experienced homelessness (DH). Methods: We used community engaged research and incremental behavioral treatment development to design the Diabetes HOmeless MEdication Support (D-HOMES) program, a one-on-one, 3 month, coaching intervention to improve medication adherence and psychological wellness for DH. We present results of our pilot randomized trial (with baseline, 3 mo., 6 mo. assessments) comparing D-HOMES to enhanced usual care (EUC; brief diabetes education session and routine care; NCT05258630). Participants were English-speaking adults with type 2 diabetes, current/recent (<24 mo.) homelessness, and an HbA1c_7.5%. We focused on feasibility (recruitment, retention, engagement) and acceptability (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, CSQ-8). Our primary clinical outcome was glycemic control (HbA1c) and primary behavioral outcome was medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included psychological wellness and diabetes self-care. Results: Thirty-six eligible participants enrolled, 18 in each arm. Most participants identified as Black males, had high rates of co-morbidities, and lived in subsidized housing. We retained 100% of participants at 3-months, and 94% at 6-months. Participants reported high satisfaction (mean CSQ-8 scores=28.64 [SD 3.94] of 32). HbA1c reduced to clinically significant levels in both groups, but we found no between group differences. Mean blood pressure improved more in D-HOMES than EUC between baseline and 6 mo. with between group mean differences of systolic -19.5 mmHg (p=0.030) and diastolic blood pressure -11.1 mmHg (p=0.049). We found no significant between group differences in other secondary outcomes. Conclusion: We effectively recruited and retained DH over 6 months. Data support that the D-HOMES intervention was acceptable and feasible. We observe preliminary blood pressure improvement favoring D-HOMES that were statistically and clinically significant. D-HOMES warrants testing in a fully powered trial which could inform future high quality behavioral trials to promote health equity. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05258630?term=D-HOMES&rank=1, identifier NCT05258630.

Mending the gap: Measurement needs to address policy implementation through a health equity lens.

Policies represent a key opportunity to improve the health outcomes of populations, and if implemented well, can reduce disparities affecting marginalized populations. Many policies are only evaluated on whether they elicit their intended health outcome. However, a lack of understanding regarding if and how they are implemented may hinder the intended impact overall and on addressing health disparities. Implementation science offers an array of frameworks and methodological approaches for assessing policy delivery, yet few examples exist that meaningfully include health equity as a core focus. This commentary describes the importance of equity-informed implementation measurement by providing case examples and implications for assessment. In addition, we highlight examples of emerging work in policy implementation grounded in health equity with suggested steps for moving the field forward. The ultimate goal is to move toward open-access measurement approaches that can be adapted to study implementation of a variety of policies at different stages of implementation, driven by input from marginalized populations and implementation practitioners, to move the needle on addressing health disparities.

This article talks about the need to include health equity as a major focus when understanding if and how policies are being implemented. We talk about gaps in the implementation science field and how equity-informed measurement tools can help to bridge this gap. Finally, we give some examples of efforts in place and where others can add to the growing resources to improve policy delivery.

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

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

Health equity-focused implementation research requires using definitions and approaches that are relevant and meaningful to implementation partners. Toward this goal, our research team asked leadership and staff at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) to share how they defined and addressed health equity at their practice settings. FQHC participants defined health equity as the essential mission of FQHCs as safety net organizations delivering care to medically underserved populations. In addition, key informants identified barriers (e.g. financing models) and facilitators (e.g. interpreter services) to advancing health equity at FQHCs. We presented these findings to a larger group of FQHC stakeholders who recommended that future implementation research and practice consider how FQHCs are challenged to address the root causes of healthcare inequities with limited resources. They also highlighted the importance of meaningful collaboration among researchers, FQHCs, and communities for data collection, data interpretation, data use, and data ownership to advance health equity. Conducting research to understand the perspectives and experiences of FQHC partners can provide clear, context-specific direction for actions to improve health equity and can inform future approaches to health equity-focused implementation research that ismeaningful to FQHC partners and the communities they serve.

Applying hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies in equity-centered policy implementation science.

Policy implementation science (IS) is complex, dynamic, and fraught with unique study challenges that set it apart from biomedical or clinical research. One important consideration is the ways in which policy interacts with local contexts, such as power and social disadvantage (e.g., based on ability, race, class, sexual identity, geography). The complex nature of policy IS and the need for more intentional integration of equity principles into study approaches calls for creative adaptations to existing implementation science knowledge and guidance. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies were developed to enhance translation of clinical research by addressing research questions around the effectiveness of an intervention and its implementation in the same study. The original work on hybrid designs mainly focused on clinical experimental trials; however, over the last decade, researchers have applied it to a wide range of initiatives and contexts, including more widespread application in community-based studies. This perspectives article demonstrates how effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies can be adapted for and applied to equity-centered policy IS research. We draw upon principles of targeted universalism and Equity in Implementation Research frameworks to guide adaptations to hybrid study typologies, and suggest research and engagement activities to enhance equity considerations; for example, in the design and testing of implementing strategies. We also provide examples of equity-centered policy IS studies. As the field of policy IS rapidly evolves, these adapted hybrid type studies are offered to researchers as a starting guide.

The societal costs and health impacts on obesity of BMI report cards in US schools.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the 10-year cost-effectiveness of school-based BMI report cards, a commonly implemented program for childhood obesity prevention in the US where student BMI is reported to parents/guardians by letter with nutrition and physical activity resources, for students in grades 3 to 7. METHODS: A microsimulation model, using data inputs from evidence reviews on health impacts and costs, estimated: how many students would be reached if the 15 states currently measuring student BMI (but not reporting to parents/guardians) implemented BMI report cards from 2023 to 2032; how many cases of childhood obesity would be prevented; expected changes in childhood obesity prevalence; and costs to society. RESULTS: BMI report cards were projected to reach 8.3 million children with overweight or obesity (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 7.7-8.9 million) but were not projected to prevent any cases of childhood obesity or significantly decrease childhood obesity prevalence. Ten-year costs totaled $210 million (95% UI: $30.5-$408 million) or $3.33 per child per year with overweight or obesity (95% UI: $3.11-$3.68). CONCLUSIONS: School-based BMI report cards are not cost-effective childhood obesity interventions. Deimplementation should be considered to free up resources for implementing effective programs.

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

BACKGROUND: Implementation science (IS) could accelerate progress toward achieving health equity goals. However, the lack of attention to the outer setting where interventions are implemented limits applicability and generalizability of findings to different populations, settings, and time periods. We developed a data resource to assess outer setting across seven centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's IS Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network Program. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of the Outer Setting Data Resource and characterize the county-level outer context across Centers. METHODS: Our Data Resource captures seven key environments, including: (1) food; (2) physical; (3) economic; (4) social; (5) health care; (6) cancer behavioral and screening; and (7) cancer-related policy. Data were obtained from public sources including the US Census and American Community Survey. We present medians and interquartile ranges based on the distribution of all counties in the US, all ISC3 centers, and within each Center for twelve selected measures. Distributions of each factor are compared with the national estimate using single sample sign tests. RESULTS: ISC3 centers' catchment areas include 458 counties and over 126 million people across 28 states. The median percentage of population living within ½ mile of a park is higher in ISC3 counties (38.0%, interquartile range (IQR): 16.0%-59.0%) compared to nationally (18.0%, IQR: 7.0%-38.0%; p < 0.0001). The median percentage of households with no broadband access is significantly lower in ISC3 counties (28.4%, IQR: 21.4%-35.6%) compared the nation overall (32.8%, IQR: 25.8%-41.2%; p < 0.0001). The median unemployment rate was significantly higher in ISC3 counties (5.2%, IQR: 4.1%-6.4%) compared to nationally (4.9%, 3.6%-6.3%, p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the outer setting varies across Centers and often differs from the national level. These findings demonstrate the importance of assessing the contextual environment in which interventions are implemented and suggest potential implications for intervention generalizability and scalability.

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.

Embedding community-engaged research principles in implementation science: The implementation science center for cancer control equity.

Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.

Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation: a Mixed Methods Pilot Feasibility Study.

We conducted a mixed methods pilot feasibility study of a Stakeholder and Equity Data-Driven Implementation (SEDDI) process to facilitate using healthcare data to identify patient groups experiencing gaps in the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and rapidly adapt EBIs to achieve greater access and equitable outcomes. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of SEDDI in a pilot hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of a paired colorectal cancer (CRC) and social needs screening intervention at four federally qualified community health centers (CHCs). An external facilitator partnered with CHC teams to support initial implementation, followed by the SEDDI phase focused on advancing health equity. Facilitation sessions were delivered over 8 months. Preliminary evaluation of SEDDI involved convergent mixed methods with quantitative survey and focus group data. CHCs used data to identify gaps in outreach and completion of CRC screening with respect to race/ethnicity, gender, age, and language. Adaptations to improve access and use of the intervention included cultural, linguistic, and health literacy tailoring. CHC teams reported that facilitation and systematic review of data were helpful in identifying and prioritizing gaps. None of the four CHCs completed rapid cycle testing of adaptations largely due to competing priorities during the COVID-19 response. SEDDI has the potential for advancing chronic disease prevention and management by providing a stakeholder and data-driven approach to identify and prioritize health equity targets and guide adaptations to improve health equity. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04585919.

A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.

BACKGROUND: Although there is increasing interest in reporting results of environmental research efforts back to participants, evidence-based tools have not yet been applied to developed materials to ensure their accessibility in terms of literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Additionally, there is not yet guidance as to how to formally assess the created materials to assure a match with the intended audience. METHODS: Relying on formative qualitative research with participants of an indoor air quality study in Dorchester, Massachusetts, we identified means of enhancing accessibility of indoor air quality data report-back materials for participants. Participants (n = 20) engaged in semi-structured interviews in which they described challenges they encountered with scientific and medical materials and outlined written and verbal communication techniques that would help facilitate engagement with and accessibility of environmental health report-back materials. We coupled these insights from participants with best practice guidelines for written materials by operationalizing health literacy tools to produce accessible audience-informed data report-back materials. RESULTS: The resulting data report-back materials had a 7th -grade reading level, and between a 4th -8th grade level of overall document complexity. The numeracy skills required to engage with the material were of the lowest demand, and we incorporated best practices for risk communication and facilitating understanding and actionability of the materials. Use of a rigorous assessment tool provides evidence of accessibility and appropriateness of the material for the audience. CONCLUSIONS: We outline a process for developing and evaluating environmental health data reports that are tailored to inspire risk-reduction actions, and are demonstrably accessible in terms of their literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Adapting health literacy tools to create and evaluate environmental data report-back materials is a novel and evidence-based means of ensuring their accessibility.

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute's Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on 'health equity and context' to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. DISCUSSION: In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

Enabling community input to improve equity in and access to translational research: The Community Coalition for Equity in Research.

Background: The COVID vaccine trials illustrated the critical need for the development of mechanisms to serve as a bridge between least advantaged communities and researchers. Such mechanisms would increase the number of studies that are designed with community needs and interests in mind, in ways that will close gaps rather than widen them. This paper reports on the creation of the Community Coalition for Equity in Research, a community-driven resource designed to build community capacity to provide researchers with credible and actionable input on study design and implementation and increase researchers' understanding of factors that influence community support of research. Methods and Results: We provide a description of the Coalition's structure and process and an evaluation of its first year of operation. Researchers rated their experience very positively and reported that the Coalition's review will improve their research. Coalition members reported high levels of satisfaction with their participation and the processes set up for them to engage with researchers. Members also largely agreed that their participation has value for their community, and that it has increased their interest in research and the likelihood that they would recommend research participation to others. Conclusions: The Coalition represents a model for increasing two-way engagement between researchers and the larger community. We are optimistic that the Coalition will continue to develop and grow into a vibrant entity that will bring value to both investigators and our local communities and will increase the consideration of equity as a foundational principle in all translational research.

Advancing gender equity in the academy.

Implementation science offers a rigorous set of tools to help mitigate long-standing and worsening gender disparities in academia.

The Prevalence of Dissemination and Implementation Research and Training Grants at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

Background: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is a key factor in the uptake and use of evidence-based cancer control interventions. National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers are ideal settings in which to further D&I knowledge. The purpose of this study was to summarize the characteristics of NCI-funded D&I science grants in the nation's cancer centers to understand the nature, extent, and opportunity for this key type of translational work. Methods: We used the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool to identify active NCI-funded grants in D&I science at NCI clinical cancer centers (n = 13) and comprehensive cancer centers (n = 51) as well as their academic affiliates. Active projects were eligible for inclusion if they 1) were awarded directly to an NCI cancer center or an academic or research affiliate, and 2) identified D&I content in the abstract. Portfolio data were collected in February 2021. Results: We identified 104 active NCI-funded D&I research or training grants across the 64 cancer centers; 57.8% of cancer centers had at least 1 NCI-funded D&I grant. Most awards (71.1%) were for research grants. Training grants constituted 29.1% of D&I-focused grants. Overall, 50.0% of grants (n = 52) concentrated on specific cancers. Almost two-thirds of grants (n = 68, 65.4%) had a stated health equity focus. Conclusions: More than one-half of NCI-designated cancer centers have active funding in D&I science, reflecting a substantial investment by NCI. There remains considerable room for further development, which would further support NCI's translational mission.

Permanent Supportive Housing With Housing First: Findings From a Community Guide Systematic Economic Review.

INTRODUCTION: The annual economic burden of chronic homelessness in the U.S. is estimated to be as high as $3.4 billion. The Permanent Supportive Housing with Housing First (Housing First) program, implemented to address the problem, has been shown to be effective. This paper examines the economic cost and benefit of Housing First Programs. METHODS: The search of peer-reviewed and gray literature from inception of databases through November 2019 yielded 20 evaluation studies of Housing First Programs, 17 from the U.S. and 3 from Canada. All analyses were conducted from March 2019 through July 2020. Monetary values are reported in 2019 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: Evidence from studies conducted in the U.S. was separated from those conducted in Canada. The median intervention cost per person per year for U.S. studies was $16,479, and for all studies, including those from Canada, it was $16,336. The median total benefit for the U.S. studies was $18,247 per person per year, and it was $17,751 for all studies, including those from Canada. The benefit-to-cost ratio for U.S. studies was 1.80:1, and for all studies, including those from Canada, it was 1.06:1. DISCUSSION: The evidence from this review shows that economic benefits exceed the cost of Housing First Programs in the U.S. There were too few studies to determine cost-benefit in the Canadian context.

Embracing policy implementation science to ensure translation of evidence to cancer control policy.

Although health-related policies are abundant, efforts to understand how to ensure that these policies serve as an effective vehicle for translating scientific evidence are relatively sparse. This paper explores how policy-focused implementation science (IS) may contribute to understanding the translation of scientific evidence to health-related policy in governmental and nongovernmental sectors. Expanding the focus of implementation science in cancer control could systematically address policy to both increase the use of scientific evidence in general and to address health equity. In this Commentary, we look to relevant work outside of IS that could be informative, most notably from the field of political science. We propose several ideas for future research that could help move the field of policy implementation science in cancer control in the USA forward. Although most efforts to increase uptake of the scientific evidence base reference translation to "practice and policy," there has been relatively little emphasis in the USA on implementation at the policy level, especially related to cancer control. If we are to achieve the full benefits of scientific discovery on population and public health, we will need to consider policy as a critical mechanism by which evidence can be translated to practice. We have a robust set of methods within implementation science that are increasing the pace of adoption and maintenance of evidence-based programs in a variety of settings. Building on these efforts, the time is right to expand our focus to include policy implementation.

Although health-related policies are abundant, relatively few efforts have been undertaken to ensure that they are used as a way to translate scientific evidence to promote health. This paper explores how policy-focused implementation science (IS) may contribute to understanding the translation of scientific evidence to health-related policy in governmental and nongovernmental sectors. We propose several ideas for future research that could help move the field of policy implementation science in cancer control in the USA forward. We have a robust set of methods within implementation science that are increasing the pace of adoption and maintenance of evidence-based programs in a variety of settings. Building on these efforts, the time is right to expand our methods to include policy implementation.

Policy Implementation Science - An Unexplored Strategy to Address Social Determinants of Health.

This commentary explores the ways in which robust research focused on policy implementation will increase our ability to understand how to - and how not to - address social determinants of health. We make three key points in this commentary. First, policies that affect our lives and health are developed and implemented every single day, like it or not. These include "small p" policies, such as those at our workplaces that influence whether we have affordable access to healthy food at work, as well as "large P" policies that, for example, determine at a larger level whether our children's schools are required to provide physical education. However, policies interact with context and are likely to have differential effects across different groups based on demographics, socioeconomic status, geography, and culture. We are unlikely to improve health equity if we do not begin to systematically evaluate the ways in which policies can incorporate evidence-based approaches to reducing inequities and to provide structural supports needed for such interventions to have maximal impact. A policy mandating physical education in schools will do little to address disparities in fitness and weight-related outcomes if all schools cannot provide the resources for physical education teachers and safe activity spaces. Second, as we argue for an increased emphasis on policy implementation science, we acknowledge its nascent status. Although the field of implementation science has become increasingly robust in the past decade, there has been only limited application to policy. However, if we are strategic and systematic in application of implementation science approaches and methods to health-related policy, there is great opportunity to discover its impact on social determinants. This will entail fundamental work to develop common measures of policy-relevant implementation processes and outcomes, to develop the capacity to track policy proposal outcomes, and to maximize our capacity to study natural experiments of policy implementation. Third, development of an explicit policy implementation science agenda focused on health equity is critical. This will include efforts to bridge scientific evidence and policy adoption and implementation, to evaluate policy impact on a range of health equity outcomes, and to examine differential effects of varied policy implementation processes across population groups. We cannot escape the reality that policy influences health and health equity. Policy implementation science can have an important bearing in understanding how policy impacts can be health-promoting and equitable.

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.