Bridging Culture and Language: Encouraging Bilingual/Multicultural Individuals to Act as Information Navigators for Their Loved-Ones and Communities during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Linguistically diverse communities face barriers to receiving appropriate health information. COVID-19 exacerbated these health-communication inequities. University of Washington researchers surveyed bilingual staff, students, and medical interpreters - desiring training to become effective communicators of COVID-19 information to their social networks and language communities. In response, the COVID-19 Information Navigator Training was developed and pre-tested with professional networks and members of the target audience. The final training comprised three interactive modules and short quizzes. Evaluation surveys measured Information Navigators' confidence in providing COVID-19 information to their social networks. Surveys included questions on the participants' language or cultural community, the perceived value of the training, and their ability to communicate COVID-19 information. Among 393 participants who enrolled in the training, 284 completed the survey. Significant differences in confidence before and after the course were found in detecting COVID misinformation in the news and social media (pre-course mean: 3.83, post-course mean: 4.63; absolute mean difference was 0.82 points higher in the post-evaluation on the 5-point likert scale, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93, p < .01). Training multicultural volunteers to disseminate information to their social networks is a promising strategy for reaching linguistically diverse communities with up-to-date information during health emergencies.

Twenty years of capacity building across the cancer prevention and control research network.

PURPOSE: To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond. CONCLUSION: CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

The special sauce of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: 20 years of lessons learned in developing the evidence base, building community capacity, and translating research into practice.

PURPOSE: The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network focused on accelerating the translation of cancer prevention and control research evidence into practice through collaborative, multicenter projects in partnership with diverse communities. From 2003 to 2022, the CPCRN included 613 members. METHODS: We: (1) characterize the extent and nature of collaborations through a bibliometric analysis of 20 years of Network publications; and (2) describe key features and functions of the CPCRN as related to organizational structure, productivity, impact, and focus on health equity, partnership development, and capacity building through analysis of 22 in-depth interviews and review of Network documentation. RESULTS: Searching Scopus for multicenter publications among the CPCRN members from their time of Network engagement yielded 1,074 collaborative publications involving two or more members. Both the overall number and content breadth of multicenter publications increased over time as the Network matured. Since 2004, members submitted 123 multicenter grant applications, of which 72 were funded (59%), totaling more than $77 million secured. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed that the CPCRN's success-in terms of publication and grant productivity, as well as the breadth and depth of partnerships, subject matter expertise, and content area foci-is attributable to: (1) its people-the inclusion of members representing diverse content-area interests, multidisciplinary perspectives, and geographic contexts; (2) dedicated centralized structures and processes to enable and evaluate collaboration; and (3) focused attention to strategically adapting to change. CONCLUSION: CPCRN's history highlights organizational, strategic, and practical lessons learned over two decades to optimize Network collaboration for enhanced collective impact in cancer prevention and control. These insights may be useful to others seeking to leverage collaborative networks to address public health problems.

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs. METHODS: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. CONCLUSIONS: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Development and maturation of the occupational health services research field in the United States over the past 25 years: Challenges and opportunities for the future.

Work is an important social determinant of health; unfortunately, work-related injuries remain prevalent, can have devastating impact on worker health, and can impose heavy economic burdens on workers and society. Occupational health services research (OHSR) underpins occupational health services policy and practice, focusing on health determinants, health services, healthcare delivery, and health systems affecting workers. The field of OHSR has undergone tremendous expansion in both definition and scope over the past 25 years. In this commentary, focusing on the US, we document the historical development and evolution of OHSR as a research field, describe current doctoral-level OHSR training, and discuss challenges and opportunities for the OHSR field. We also propose an updated definition for the OHSR field: Research and evaluation related to the determinants of worker health and well-being; to occupational injury and illness prevention and surveillance; to healthcare, health programs, and health policy affecting workers; and to the organization, access, quality, outcomes, and costs of occupational health services and related health systems. Researchers trained in OHSR are essential contributors to improvements in healthcare, health systems, and policy and programs to improve worker health and productivity, as well as equity and justice in job and employment conditions. We look forward to the continued growth of OHSR as a field and to the expansion of OHSR academic training opportunities.

Machine learning uncovers the most robust self-report predictors of relationship quality across 43 longitudinal couples studies.

Given the powerful implications of relationship quality for health and well-being, a central mission of relationship science is explaining why some romantic relationships thrive more than others. This large-scale project used machine learning (i.e., Random Forests) to 1) quantify the extent to which relationship quality is predictable and 2) identify which constructs reliably predict relationship quality. Across 43 dyadic longitudinal datasets from 29 laboratories, the top relationship-specific predictors of relationship quality were perceived-partner commitment, appreciation, sexual satisfaction, perceived-partner satisfaction, and conflict. The top individual-difference predictors were life satisfaction, negative affect, depression, attachment avoidance, and attachment anxiety. Overall, relationship-specific variables predicted up to 45% of variance at baseline, and up to 18% of variance at the end of each study. Individual differences also performed well (21% and 12%, respectively). Actor-reported variables (i.e., own relationship-specific and individual-difference variables) predicted two to four times more variance than partner-reported variables (i.e., the partner's ratings on those variables). Importantly, individual differences and partner reports had no predictive effects beyond actor-reported relationship-specific variables alone. These findings imply that the sum of all individual differences and partner experiences exert their influence on relationship quality via a person's own relationship-specific experiences, and effects due to moderation by individual differences and moderation by partner-reports may be quite small. Finally, relationship-quality change (i.e., increases or decreases in relationship quality over the course of a study) was largely unpredictable from any combination of self-report variables. This collective effort should guide future models of relationships.

Implementing Mailed Colorectal Cancer Fecal Screening Tests in Real-World Primary Care Settings: Promising Implementation Practices and Opportunities for Improvement.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces morbidity and mortality, but screening rates in the USA remain suboptimal. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) was established in 2009 to increase screening among groups disproportionately affected. The CRCCP utilizes implementation science to support health system change as a strategy to reduce disparities in CRC screening by directing resources to primary care clinics to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) proven to increase CRC screening. As COVID-19 continues to impede in-person healthcare visits and compel the unpredictable redirection of clinic priorities, understanding clinics' adoption and implementation of EBIs into routine care is crucial. Mailed fecal testing is an evidence-based screening approach that offers an alternative to in-person screening tests and represents a promising approach to reduce CRC screening disparities. However, little is known about how mailed fecal testing is implemented in real-world settings. In this retrospective, cross-sectional analysis, we assessed practices around mailed fecal testing implementation in 185 clinics across 62 US health systems. We sought to (1) determine whether clinics that do and do not implement mailed fecal testing differ with respect to characteristics (e.g., type, location, and proportion of uninsured patients) and (2) identify implementation practices among clinics that offer mailed fecal testing. Our findings revealed that over half (58%) of clinics implemented mailed fecal testing. These clinics were more likely to have a CRC screening policy than clinics that did not implement mailed fecal testing (p = 0.007) and to serve a larger patient population (p = 0.004), but less likely to have a large proportion of uninsured patients (p = 0.01). Clinics that implemented mailed fecal testing offered it in combination with EBIs, including patient reminders (92%), provider reminders (94%), and other activities to reduce structural barriers (95%). However, fewer clinics reported having the leadership support (58%) or funding stability (29%) to sustain mailed fecal testing. Mailed fecal testing was widely implemented alongside other EBIs in primary care clinics participating in the CRCCP, but multiple opportunities for enhancing its implementation exist. These include increasing the proportion of community health centers/federally qualified health centers offering mailed screening; increasing the proportion that provide pre-paid return mail supplies with the screening kit; increasing the proportion of clinics monitoring both screening kit distribution and return; ensuring patients with abnormal tests can obtain colonoscopy; and increasing sustainability planning and support.

Worksite tobacco control - a qualitative study on perspectives from employers and employees at small worksites.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for tobacco control can be implemented in worksite settings to reduce tobacco use. Small worksites are less likely to adopt tobacco control EBIs than large worksites. The purpose of this qualitative study was to 1) explore factors that impact small employers' decisions to offer tobacco control EBIs, and 2) understand employees' perceptions of tobacco control at small worksites. METHODS: Working with staff from small worksites (20-250 employees), we analyzed data from 12 semi-structured interviews with employers (via key informants) and four focus groups with employees. We recruited employers and employees through a purchased business list and market research company, respectively. Interview and focus group topics included perceptions of worksite tobacco control; internal and external forces shaping worksite tobacco control implementation; and perceived worksite support for cessation. We conducted thematic data analysis. RESULTS: Key themes from the employer interviews included: the local environment played an important role in implementation of tobacco control EBIs; tobacco control was perceived as important but not a priority; and tobacco control decisions were driven by worksite culture. Key themes from the employee focus groups included: perceived employer support for tobacco cessation was limited although there was interest from employees; employees who currently used tobacco were stigmatized for their behavior; and incentives and coaching were considered ideal tobacco control EBIs. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco control has not been prioritized at small worksites, despite employees welcoming additional cessation support. This study contributes important information on contextual factors and employee preferences that could be targeted to improve tobacco control EBI implementation. Worksites should implement comprehensive tobacco-free policies, minimize stigma when promoting cessation, establish equitable break policies, and involve employees in decision-making related to tobacco control.

By the Seat of Our Pants: the Experience of Small Businesses in the COVID-19 Pandemic, Washington State, March-October 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Most US businesses are small, yet they employ almost half of the nation's workforce. Literature is limited about how small employers (those with 20-250 employees) have made decisions about operating their businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to learn how employers made these decisions, what information sources they used, what information they wanted, and to what extent they worked with or used information from their local health department. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semistructured interviews with 26 employers in Washington State, from August through October 2020. Employers were recruited from 7 counties (4 urban and 3 rural) that were experiencing either higher or lower COVID-19 case rates than Washington State overall. RESULTS: Employers relied heavily on national government resources to make decisions about how to operate their businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few employers had relationships with or turned to their local health departments for information or support. Employers wanted information about COVID-19 safety that was specific to their business operations and industry. Employers also described the emotional toll of COVID-19 and the challenge of trying to make high-stakes decisions with rapidly evolving information. CONCLUSION: Small employers showed little awareness of their local health departments and the information and assistance they could provide. Local health departments could increase their visibility and build relationships with small employers by partnering with them on value-added services such as workplace health promotion. Establishing these relationships could support more rapid collaboration between local health departments and small employers during future public health crises.

Evaluating Uptake of Evidence-Based Interventions in 355 Clinics Partnering With the Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2015-2018.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer screening rates remain suboptimal in the US. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) seeks to increase screening in health system clinics through implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) and supporting activities (SAs). This program provided an opportunity to assess the uptake of EBIs and SAs in 355 clinics that participated from 2015 to 2018. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The 30 funded awardees of CRCCP partnered with clinics to implement at least 2 of 4 EBIs that CDC prioritized (patient reminders, provider reminders, reducing structural barriers, provider assessment and feedback) and 4 optional strategies that CDC identified as SAs (small media, professional development and provider education, patient navigation, and community health workers). EVALUATION METHODS: Clinics completed 3 annual surveys to report uptake, implementation, and integration and perceived sustainability of the priority EBIs and SAs. RESULTS: In our sample of 355 clinics, uptake of 4 EBIs and 2 SAs significantly increased over time. By year 3, 82% of clinics implemented patient reminder systems, 88% implemented provider reminder systems, 82% implemented provider assessment and feedback, 76% implemented activities to reduce structural barriers, 51% implemented provider education, and 84% used small media. Most clinics that implemented these strategies (>90%) considered them fully integrated into the health system or clinic operations and sustainable by year 3. Fewer clinics used patient navigation (30%) and community health workers (19%), with no increase over the years of the study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Clinics participating in the CRCCP reported high uptake and perceived sustainability of EBIs that can be integrated into electronic medical record systems but limited uptake of patient navigation and community health workers, which are uniquely suited to reduce cancer disparities. Future research should determine how to promote uptake and assess cost-effectiveness of CRCCP interventions.

Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics.

Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.

Local Health Departments' Capacity for Workplace Health Promotion Programs to Prevent Chronic Disease: Comparison of Rural, Micropolitan, and Urban Contexts.

OBJECTIVE: To examine local health department (LHD) contexts, capacity for, and interest in partnering with employers on workplace health promotion programs (WHPPs) for chronic disease prevention. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with LHD directors. SETTING: LHDs from 21 counties in 10 states. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one LHD directors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURESS: Experiences and perceptions of existing partnerships, decision making, funding, data needs, and organizational capacity for WHPP partnerships with employers. RESULTS: We identified 3 themes: (1) LHDs see the value of partnering with employers but lack the capacity to do so effectively; (2) while LHDs base priorities on community need, funding ultimately drives decision making; and (3) rural, micropolitan, and urban LHDs differ in their readiness and capacity to work with employers. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding LHDs' partnership capacity and context is essential to the successful implementation of WHPP partnerships with employers. Expanding these partnerships may require additional financial investments, particularly among rural LHDs.

Local Health Jurisdiction Staff Deliver Health Promotion to Small Worksites, Washington.

CONTEXT: Worksites can serve as community sites for local health jurisdictions (LHJs) to assist with implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to prevent and control chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of using LHJ staff to disseminate Connect to Wellness (CtW), an effective dissemination package for increasing implementation of EBIs for chronic disease control by small worksites. DESIGN: Single-arm, multisite intervention trial, with measurement at baseline, after 6 months of intervention, and after a maintenance period of 6 months. SETTING: Six geographically dispersed counties in Washington State. Target worksites had 20 to 250 employees. PARTICIPANTS: Nine staff members from 6 LHJs delivered CtW to 35 worksites. INTERVENTION: Connect to Wellness seeks to increase worksites' implementation of 14 EBIs classified as communication, policy, or program approaches to increasing 4 behaviors: cancer screening, healthy eating, physical activity, and tobacco cessation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Evidence-based intervention implementation measured on a scale from 0% to 100%. RESULTS: Participating worksites showed a significant increase (P < .001, t test) in total mean implementation scores from baseline (33%) to 6-month follow-up (47%). Increases in implementation for communications, policy, healthy eating, and tobacco EBIs were statistically significant at 6 months and maintained at 12 months. Increased implementation at 6 months of a group physical activity program was not sustained after the program became unavailable, and total implementation scores at 12 months (38%) showed little change from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Local health jurisdiction-delivered CtW increased worksites' implementation of EBIs at 6 months, and increased implementation in communication, policy, healthy eating, and tobacco was maintained at 12 months. This package, delivered by LHJ staff working part-time on CtW, was nearly as successful as prior delivery by staff working full-time on CtW.

Use of Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes and Dual Use Among Adult Employees in the US Workplace.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based interventions for tobacco control in the US workplace can reach a large audience. The purpose of our study was to explore the prevalence and determinants of type of tobacco use (ie, cigarettes only, e-cigarettes only, or dual use) among adult employees in the United States and to examine type of use by state. METHODS: We used data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to examine the prevalence of cigarette use, e-cigarette use, dual use, and quit attempts. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine the relationships between sociodemographic characteristics and type of tobacco product used, and we estimated adjusted prevalence. RESULTS: Approximately 17% of respondents were current smokers, 5% were current e-cigarette users, and 2% were dual users. E-cigarette-only and dual use were generally highest among young (aged 18-24), male, and less-educated respondents and lower for respondents who identified as black, Asian/Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or Hispanic than for white respondents. Cigarette-only and dual use were higher for respondents who did not have health care coverage. Prevalence by state of e-cigarette use only ranged from 1.2% (Vermont) to 3.9% (Arkansas), whereas the prevalence of dual use ranged from 0.6% (District of Columbia) to 4.0% (Oklahoma). CONCLUSION: Prevalence of cigarette, e-cigarette, and dual use varied by sociodemographic characteristics and by state. These findings can support targeting of specific populations when designing and implementing evidence-based interventions for tobacco control in workplace settings.

Disseminating Evidence-Based Interventions in Small, Low-Wage Worksites: A Randomized Controlled Trial in King County, Washington (2014-2017).

Objectives. To determine whether (1) participating in HealthLinks, and (2) adding wellness committees to HealthLinks increases worksites' evidence-based intervention (EBI) implementation.Methods. We developed HealthLinks to disseminate EBIs to small, low-wage worksites. From 2014 to 2017, we conducted a site-randomized trial in King County, Washington, with 68 small worksites (20-200 employees). We assigned worksites to 1 of 3 arms: HealthLinks, HealthLinks plus wellness committee (HealthLinks+), or delayed control. At baseline, 15 months, and 24 months, we assessed worksites' EBI implementation on a 0% to 100% scale and employees' perceived support for their health behaviors.Results. Postintervention EBI scores in both intervention arms (HealthLinks and HealthLinks+) were significantly higher than in the control arm at 15 months (51%, 51%, and 23%, respectively) and at 24 months (33%, 37%, and 24%, respectively; P < .001). Employees in the intervention arms perceived greater support for their health at 15 and 24 months than did employees in control worksites.Conclusions. HealthLinks is an effective strategy for disseminating EBIs to small worksites in low-wage industries.Public Health Implications. Future research should focus on scaling up HealthLinks, improving EBI maintenance, and measuring impact of these on health behavior.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: Accelerating the implementation of evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions.

This editorial provides a high level overview of the articles included in this supplement.

Patient navigator reported patient barriers and delivered activities in two large federally-funded cancer screening programs.

Few data are available on patient navigators (PNs) across diverse roles and organizational settings that could inform optimization of patient navigation models for cancer prevention. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) and the Colorectal Cancer and Control Program (CRCCP) are two federally-funded screening programs that support clinical- and community-based PNs who serve low-income and un- or underinsured populations across the United States. An online survey assessing PN characteristics, delivered activities, and patient barriers to screening was completed by 437 of 1002 identified PNs (44%). Responding PNs were racially and ethnically diverse, had varied professional backgrounds and practice-settings, worked with diverse populations, and were located within rural and urban/suburban locations across the U.S. More PNs reported working to promote screening for breast/cervical cancers (BCC, 94%) compared to colorectal cancer (CRC, 39%). BCC and CRC PNs reported similar frequencies of individual- (e.g., knowledge, motivation, fear) and community-level patient barriers (e.g., beliefs about healthcare and screening). Despite reporting significant patient structural barriers (e.g., transportation, work and clinic hours), most BCC and CRC PNs delivered individual-level navigation activities (e.g., education, appointment reminders). PN training to identify and champion timely and patient-centered adjustments to organizational policies, practices, and norms of the NBCCEDP, CRCCP, and partner organizations may be beneficial. More research is needed to determine whether multilevel interventions that support this approach could reduce structural barriers and increase screening and diagnostic follow-up among the marginalized communities served by these two important cancer-screening programs.

An application of the Science Impact Framework to the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network from 2014-2018.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a strategic collaborative effort focused on accelerating the dissemination and implementation of evidence-based cancer prevention and control interventions to communities. In 2014, the CPCRN Coordinating Center began collecting information in alignment with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Science Impact Framework. The Science Impact Framework is a CDC-developed approach to trace and link CDC science to events and/or actions recognized as influential to public health, beyond peer-reviewed publications. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the impact of CPCRN activities using key indicators guided by the CDC's Science Impact Framework. We reviewed annual progress reports submitted by CPCRN centers from 2014 to 2019 to identify the impact indicators. The CPCRN activities were linked to four domains from the Science Impact Framework and its key indicators: Disseminating Science (presentations, training, general communication, and other communication reports), Creating Awareness (requests for expertise, and feedback), Catalyzing Action (grant applications, partnerships and collaborations, research & development, advocacy groups, office practice/point of care changes, and technology creating), and Effecting Change (building public health practice, creation of registries/surveillance, legal/policy changes, and change instilled). Overall, CPCRN activities demonstrate impact beyond peer-reviewed publications and thus should continue building scientific impact to ultimately influence health outcomes.

Workplace health promotion and safety in state and territorial health departments in the United States: a national mixed-methods study of activity, capacity, and growth opportunities.

BACKGROUND: State and Territorial Health Departments (SHDs) have a unique role in protecting and promoting workers' health. This mixed-methods study presents the first systematic investigation of SHDs' activities and capacity in both Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) and Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) in the United States (US). METHODS: National survey of OSH and WHP practitioners from each of 56 SHDs, followed by in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents. We calculated descriptive statistics for survey variables and conducted conventional content analysis of interviews. RESULTS: Seventy percent (n = 39) of OSH and 71% (n = 40) of WHP contacts responded to the survey. Twenty-seven (n = 14 OSH, n = 13 WHP) participated in follow-up interviews. Despite limited funding, staffing, or organizational support, SHDs reported a wide array of activities. We assessed OSH and WHP surveillance activities, support that SHDs provided to employers to implement OSH and WHP interventions (implementation support), OSH and WHP services provided directly to workers, OSH follow-back investigations, and OSH standard and policy development. Each of the categories we asked about (excluding OSH standard and policy development) were performed by more than half of responding SHDs. Surveillance was the area of greatest OSH activity, while implementation support was the area of greatest WHP activity. Respondents characterized their overall capacity as low. Thirty percent (n = 9) of WHP and 19% (n = 6) of OSH respondents reported no funds at all for OSH/WHP work, and both groups reported a median 1.0 FTEs working on OSH/WHP at the SHD. Organizational support for OSH and WHP was characterized as "low" to "moderate". To increase SHDs' capacity for OSH and WHP, interview respondents recommended that OSH and WHP approaches be better integrated into other public health initiatives (e.g., infectious disease prevention), and that federal funding for OSH and WHP increase. They also discussed specific recommendations for improving the accessibility and utility of existing funding mechanisms, and the educational resources they desired from the CDC. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed current activities and specific strategies for increasing capacity of SHDs to promote the safety and health of workers and workplaces - an important public health setting for reducing acute injury and chronic disease.

Adoption and Implementation of Evidence-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Interventions Among Cancer Control Program Grantees, 2009-2015.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Although effective CRC screening tests exist, CRC screening is underused. Use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to increase CRC screening could save many lives. The Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides a unique opportunity to study EBI adoption, implementation, and maintenance. We assessed 1) the number of grantees implementing 5 EBIs during 2011 through 2015, 2) grantees' perceived ease of implementing each EBI, and 3) grantees' reasons for stopping EBI implementation. INTERVENTION APPROACH: CDC funded 25 states and 4 tribal entities to participate in the CRCCP. Grantees used CRCCP funds to 1) provide CRC screening to individuals who were uninsured and low-income, and 2) promote CRC screening at the population level. One component of the CRC screening promotion effort was implementing 1 or more of 5 EBIs to increase CRC screening rates. EVALUATION METHODS: We surveyed CRCCP grantees about EBI implementation with an online survey in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015. We conducted descriptive analyses of closed-ended items and coded open-text responses for themes related to barriers and facilitators to EBI implementation. RESULTS: Most grantees implemented small media (≥25) or client reminders (≥21) or both all program years. Although few grantees reported implementation of EBIs such as reducing structural barriers (n = 14) and provider reminders (n = 9) in 2011, implementation of these EBIs increased over time. Implementation of provider assessment and feedback increased over time, but was reported by the fewest grantees (n = 17) in 2015. Reasons for discontinuing EBIs included funding ending, competing priorities, or limited staff capacity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: CRCCP grantees implemented EBIs across all years studied, yet implementation varied by EBI and did not get easier with time. Our findings can inform long-term planning for EBIs with state and tribal public health institutions and their partners.