Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys). RESULTS: Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems. DISCUSSION: A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

Patient Willingness to Use a Pharmacy-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Service: A National Survey of U.S. Adults.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand U.S. adults' willingness to use a pharmacy-based fecal immunochemical test (FIT) distribution service for routine colorectal cancer screening called PharmFIT using Diffusion of Innovation Theory, evaluating patient's appraisals of the program's relative advantage, compatibility, and complexity. METHODS: From March to April 2021, we conducted a national online survey of 1,045 U.S. adults ages 45 to 75. We identified correlates of patient willingness to use PharmFIT using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Most respondents (72%) were willing to get a FIT from their pharmacy for their regular colorectal cancer screening. Respondents were more willing to participate in PharmFIT if they perceived higher relative advantage ($\hat{\beta}$= 0.184; confidence interval, CI95%: 0.055-0.325) and perceived higher compatibility ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.422; CI95%: 0.253-0.599) to get screened in a pharmacy, had longer travel times to their primary health care provider ($\hat{\beta}$ = 0.007; CI95%: 0.004-0.010). Respondents were less willing to participate in PharmFIT if they were 65 years or older ($\hat{\beta}$ = -0.220; CI95%: -0.362 to -0.070). CONCLUSIONS: Most U.S. adults would be willing to participate in PharmFIT for their routine colorectal cancer screening. Patient perceptions of the relative advantage and compatibility of PharmFIT were strongly associated with their willingness to use PharmFIT. Pharmacies should account for patient preferences for these two traits of PharmFIT to increase adoption and use. IMPACT: Pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening may be a viable public health strategy to significantly increase equitable access to screening for U.S. residents.

Patient perspectives on a proposed pharmacy-based colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common and preventable cancer. CRC screening is underutilized, particularly within medically underserved communities. Most interventions aimed at increasing CRC screening are delivered through primary care clinics. Pharmacies are more accessible than traditional primary care settings and may be ideally suited for delivering CRC screening and increasing access. Fecal immunochemical test is an at-home, stool-based CRC screening test that could be distributed through pharmacies. The purpose of our study was to assess patient perspectives on receiving fecal immunochemical test-based CRC screening through pharmacies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with participants residing in North Carolina and Washington. Interviews explored acceptability and intervention design preferences for a pharmacy-based CRC screening program. The interview guide was informed by Andersen's Healthcare Utilization Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Patients perceived a pharmacy-based CRC screening program to be highly acceptable, citing factors such as ease of pharmacy access and avoiding co-pays for an office visit. Some concerns about privacy and coordination with patients' primary care provider tempered acceptability. Trust and positive relationships with providers and pharmacists as well as seamless care across the CRC screening continuum also were viewed as important. Patients viewed pharmacy-based CRC screening as an acceptable option for CRC screening. To improve programmatic success, it will be important to ensure privacy, determine how communication between the pharmacy and the patient's provider will take place, and establish closed-loop care, particularly for patients with abnormal results.

Colon cancer is a common and preventable cancer in the USA and testing for colon cancer can be done at home with a simple test. Yet, many people remain unscreened. This is particularly true for people who may not have ready access to health care, such as those who have limited incomes or resources or who live in rural areas. Most people live close to a pharmacy and visit a pharmacy more frequently than a primary care office. Pharmacies commonly offer services beyond medication dispensing (e.g. flu shot, diabetes management), making them a potential avenue for increasing colon cancer screening. This study aimed to learn what patients think about receiving colon cancer screening through pharmacies. We interviewed 32 people who fit the age-range recommended for colon cancer screening. They were open to, even embracing of, getting screened for colon cancer through a pharmacy, primarily because of its convenience, accessibility, and because it would not require a co-pay. At the same time, they emphasized the need for privacy and coordination with their primary care provider. We concluded that colon cancer screening in pharmacies is potentially a good option for people, provided they have privacy and that their primary care providers are informed.

Primary care provider perspectives on the role of community pharmacy in colorectal cancer screening: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lists 32 grade A or B recommended preventive services for non-pregnant United States (US) adults, including colorectal cancer screening (CRC). Little guidance is given on how to implement these services with consistency and fidelity in primary care. Given limited patient visit time and competing demands, primary care providers (PCPs) tend to prioritize a small subset of these recommendations. Completion rates of some of these services, including CRC screening, are suboptimal. Expanding delivery of preventive services to other healthcare providers, where possible, can improve access and uptake, particularly in medically underserved areas or populations. Fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) (at-home, stool-based testing) for CRC screening can be distributed and resulted without PCP involvement. Pharmacists have long delivered preventive services (e.g., influenza vaccination) and may be a good option for expanding CRC screening delivery using FIT, but it is not clear how PCPs would perceive this expansion. METHODS: We used semi-structured interviews with PCPs in North Carolina and Washington state to assess perceptions and recommendations for a potential pharmacy-based FIT distribution program (PharmFIT™). Transcripts were coded and analyzed using a hybrid inductive-deductive content analysis guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to elucidate potential multi-level facilitators of and barriers to implementation of PharmFIT™. RESULTS: We completed 30 interviews with PCPs in North Carolina (N = 12) and Washington state (N = 18). PCPs in both states were largely accepting of PharmFIT™, with several important considerations. First, PCPs felt that pharmacists should receive appropriate training for identifying patients eligible and due for FIT screening. Second, a clear understanding of responsibility for tracking tests, communication, and, particularly, follow-up of positive test results should be established and followed. Finally, clear electronic workflows should be established for relay of test result information between the pharmacy and the primary care clinic. CONCLUSION: If the conditions are met regarding pharmacist training, follow-up for positive FITs, and transfer of documentation, PCPs are likely to support PharmFIT™ as a way for their patients to obtain and complete CRC screening using FIT.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening after mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach in a newly eligible 45-49-year-old community health center population.

PURPOSE: We assessed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) uptake following a mailed FIT intervention among 45-49-year-olds newly eligible for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening based on 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force screening recommendations. We also tested the effect of an enhanced versus plain mailing envelope on FIT uptake. METHODS: In February 2022 we mailed FITs to eligible 45-49-year-olds at one Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic. We determined the proportion who completed FITs within 60 days. We also conducted a nested randomized trial comparing uptake using an enhanced envelope (padded with tracking label and colored messaging sticker) versus plain envelope. Finally, we determined the change in CRC screening by any modality (e.g., FIT, colonoscopy) among all clinic patients in this age group (i.e., clinic-level screening) between baseline and 6 months post-intervention. RESULTS: We mailed FITs to 316 patients. Sample characteristics: 57% female, 58% non-Hispanic Black, and 50% commercially insured. Overall, 54/316 (17.1%) returned a FIT within 60 days, including 34/158 (21.5%) patients in the enhanced envelope arm versus 20/158 (12.7%) in the plain envelope arm (difference 8.9 percentage points, 95% CI: 0.6-17.2). Clinic-level screening among all 45-49-year-olds increased 16.6 percentage points (95% CI: 10.9-22.3), from 26.7% at baseline to 43.3% at 6 months. CONCLUSION: CRC screening appeared to increase following a mailed FIT intervention among diverse FQHC patients aged 45-49. Larger studies are needed to assess acceptability and completion of CRC screening in this younger population. Visually appealing mailers may improve uptake when implementing mailed interventions. Trial registration The trial was registered on May 28, 2020 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT04406714).

Principles to operationalize equity in cancer research and health outcomes: lessons learned from the cancer prevention and control research network.

Reflecting their commitment to advancing health equity, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) established a Health Equity Workgroup to identify and distill guiding principles rooted in health equity, community-engaged participatory research (CBPR), social determinants of health, and racial equity frameworks to guide its collective work. The Health Equity Workgroup utilized a multi-phase, participatory consensus-building approach to: (1) identify recurrent themes in health and racial equity frameworks; (2) capture perspectives on and experiences with health equity research among CPCRN members through an online survey; (3) engage in activities to discuss and refine the guiding principles; and (4) collect case examples of operationalizing equity principles in cancer research. Representatives from all CPCRN centers endorsed nine core principles to guide the Network's strategic plan: (1) Engage in power-sharing and capacity building with partners; (2) Address community priorities through community engagement and co-creation of research; (3) Explore and address the systems and structural root causes of cancer disparities; (4) Build a system of accountability between research and community partners; (5) Establish transparent relationships with community partners; (6) Prioritize the sustainability of research benefits for community partners; (7) Center racial equity in cancer prevention and control research; (8) Engage in equitable data collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination practices; and (9) Integrate knowledge translation, implementation, and dissemination into research plans. Dissemination products, such as toolkits and technical assistance workshops, reflecting these principles will foster knowledge transfer to intentionally integrate health and racial equity principles in cancer prevention and control research.

Interventions to address cancer-related financial toxicity: Recommendations from the field.

PURPOSE: Addressing financial toxicity among cancer patients is a complex process that requires a multifaceted approach, particularly for rural patients who may face additional cost-related barriers to care. In this study, we examined interventions being implemented by financial navigation staff at various cancer centers that help address financial toxicity experienced by oncology patients. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with a convenience sample of financial navigation staff across 29 cancer centers in both rural and urban areas in 7 states. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Descriptive coding and thematic analysis techniques were used to analyze the data. FINDINGS: Thirty-five participants were interviewed, the majority of whom worked in cancer centers located in rural counties. Participants identified the use of screening tools, patient education, and access to tailored financial assistance resources as best practices. Immediate resource needs included additional financial navigation staff, including lay navigators and community health workers, to promote linkages to local resources. Suggested clinical areas for intervention included proactive and early implementation of financial assessments and discussions between providers and patients, along with training and access to regularly updated resources for those in financial navigator/counselor roles. Participants also discussed the need for policy-level interventions to reform health systems (including employment protections) and health insurance programs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing proactive methods to screen for and address financial needs of patients is essential to improving cancer-related outcomes. Additional programs and research are needed to help establish systematic and standardized methods to enhance financial navigation services, especially for underserved rural communities.

Designs and methods for implementation research: Advancing the mission of the CTSA program.

INTRODUCTION: The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in response to the challenges of translating biomedical and behavioral interventions from discovery to real-world use. To address the challenge of translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice, the field of implementation science has emerged as a distinct discipline. With the distinction between EBI effectiveness research and implementation research comes differences in study design and methodology, shifting focus from clinical outcomes to the systems that support adoption and delivery of EBIs with fidelity. METHODS: Implementation research designs share many of the foundational elements and assumptions of efficacy/effectiveness research. Designs and methods that are currently applied in implementation research include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, simulation modeling, and configurational comparative methods. RESULTS: Examples of specific research designs and methods illustrate their use in implementation science. We propose that the CTSA program takes advantage of the momentum of the field's capacity building in three ways: 1) integrate state-of-the-science implementation methods and designs into its existing body of research; 2) position itself at the forefront of advancing the science of implementation science by collaborating with other NIH institutes that share the goal of advancing implementation science; and 3) provide adequate training in implementation science. CONCLUSIONS: As implementation methodologies mature, both implementation science and the CTSA program would greatly benefit from cross-fertilizing expertise and shared infrastructures that aim to advance healthcare in the USA and around the world.

Understanding the processes that Federally Qualified Health Centers use to select and implement colorectal cancer screening interventions: a qualitative study.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is highly effective at reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality, yet screening rates remain suboptimal. Evidence-based interventions can increase screening rates, particularly when they target multiple levels (e.g., patients, providers, health care systems). However, effective interventions remain underutilized. Thus, there is a pressing need to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions. We report on formative research aimed at understanding how Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) staff select and implement CRC screening interventions, which will inform development of capacity-building strategies. We report the qualitative findings from a study that used a mixed methods design, starting with a quantitative survey followed by a qualitative study. In-depth interviews were conducted with 28 staff from 14 FQHCs in 8 states. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided interview questions and data analysis. Related to the CFIR process domain, few respondents described conducting formal assessments of factors contributing to low screening rates prior to planning their interventions. Many described engaging champions, implementation leaders, and external change agents. Few described a systematic approach to executing implementation plans beyond conducting plan-do-study-act cycles. Reflection and evaluation consisted primarily of reviewing Uniform Data System performance measures. Findings also include themes related to factors influencing these implementation processes. Although FQHCs are implementing CRC screening interventions, they are not actively targeting the multilevel factors influencing their CRC screening rates. Our findings on gaps in FQHCs' implementation processes will inform development of strategies to build capacity to select and implement multilevel CRC screening interventions.

Situating dissemination and implementation sciences within and across the translational research spectrum.

The efficient and effective movement of research into practice is acknowledged as crucial to improving population health and assuring return on investment in healthcare research. The National Center for Advancing Translational Science which sponsors Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) recognizes that dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences have matured over the last 15 years and are central to its goals to shift academic health institutions to better align with this reality. In 2016, the CTSA Collaboration and Engagement Domain Task Force chartered a D&I Science Workgroup to explore the role of D&I sciences across the translational research spectrum. This special communication discusses the conceptual distinctions and purposes of dissemination, implementation, and translational sciences. We propose an integrated framework and provide real-world examples for articulating the role of D&I sciences within and across all of the translational research spectrum. The framework's major proposition is that it situates D&I sciences as targeted "sub-sciences" of translational science to be used by CTSAs, and others, to identify and investigate coherent strategies for more routinely and proactively accelerating research translation. The framework highlights the importance of D&I thought leaders in extending D&I principles to all research stages.

T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool.

BACKGROUND: Theories, models, and frameworks (TMF) are foundational for generalizing implementation efforts and research findings. However, TMF and the criteria used to select them are not often described in published articles, perhaps due in part to the challenge of selecting from among the many TMF that exist in the field. The objective of this international study was to develop a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide their implementation projects. METHODS: Implementation scientists across the USA, the UK, and Canada identified and rated conceptually distinct categories of criteria in a concept mapping exercise. We then used the concept mapping results to develop a tool to help users select appropriate TMF for their projects. We assessed the tool's usefulness through expert consensus and cognitive and semi-structured interviews with implementation scientists. RESULTS: Thirty-seven implementation scientists (19 researchers and 18 practitioners) identified four criteria domains: usability, testability, applicability, and familiarity. We then developed a prototype of the tool that included a list of 25 criteria organized by domain, definitions of the criteria, and a case example illustrating an application of the tool. Results of cognitive and semi-structured interviews highlighted the need for the tool to (1) be as succinct as possible; (2) have separate versions to meet the unique needs of researchers versus practitioners; (3) include easily understood terms; (4) include an introduction that clearly describes the tool's purpose and benefits; (5) provide space for noting project information, comparing and scoring TMF, and accommodating contributions from multiple team members; and (6) include more case examples illustrating its application. Interview participants agreed that the tool (1) offered them a way to select from among candidate TMF, (2) helped them be explicit about the criteria that they used to select a TMF, and (3) enabled them to compare, select from among, and/or consider the usefulness of combining multiple TMF. These revisions resulted in the Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST), a paper and web-enabled tool that includes 16 specific criteria that can be used to consider and justify the selection of TMF for a given project. Criteria are organized within four categories: applicability, usability, testability, and acceptability. CONCLUSIONS: T-CaST is a user-friendly tool to help scientists and practitioners select appropriate TMF to guide implementation projects. Additionally, T-CaST has the potential to promote transparent reporting of criteria used to select TMF within and beyond the field of implementation science.

Use of Evidence-Based Interventions and Implementation Strategies to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

While colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates have been increasing in the general population, rates are considerably lower in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which serve a large proportion of uninsured and medically vulnerable patients. Efforts to screen eligible patients must be accelerated if we are to reach the national screening goal of 80% by 2018 and beyond. To inform this work, we conducted a survey of key informants at FQHCs in eight states to determine which evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to promote CRC screening are currently being used, and which implementation strategies are being employed to ensure that the interventions are executed as intended. One hundred and forty-eight FQHCs were invited to participate in the study, and 56 completed surveys were received for a response rate of 38%. Results demonstrated that provider reminder and recall systems were the most commonly used EBIs (44.6%) while the most commonly used implementation strategy was the identification of barriers (84.0%). The mean number of EBIs that were fully implemented at the centers was 2.4 (range 0-7) out of seven. Almost one-quarter of respondents indicated that their FQHCs were not using any EBIs to increase CRC screening. Full implementation of EBIs was correlated with higher CRC screening rates. These findings identify gaps as well as the preferences and needs of FQHCs in selecting and implementing EBIs for CRC screening.

Behavioral and mental health risk factor profiles among diverse primary care patients.

Behavioral and mental health risk factors are prevalent among primary care patients and contribute substantially to premature morbidity and mortality and increased health care utilization and costs. Although prior studies have found most adults screen positive for multiple risk factors, limited research has attempted to identify factors that most commonly co-occur, which may guide future interventions. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of primary care patients with co-occurring risk factors and to examine sociodemographic characteristics associated with these subgroups. We assessed 12 behavioral health risk factors in a sample of adults (n=1628) receiving care from nine primary care practices across six U.S. states in 2013. Using latent class analysis, we identified four distinct patient subgroups: a 'Mental Health Risk' class (prevalence=14%; low physical activity, high stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, and sleepiness), a 'Substance Use Risk' class (29%; highest tobacco, drug, alcohol use), a 'Dietary Risk' class (29%; high BMI, poor diet), and a 'Lower Risk' class (27%). Compared to the Lower Risk class, patients in the Mental Health Risk class were younger and less likely to be Latino/Hispanic, married, college educated, or employed. Patients in the Substance Use class tended to be younger, male, African American, unmarried, and less educated. African Americans were over 7 times more likely to be in the Dietary Risk versus Lower Risk class (OR 7.7, 95% CI 4.0-14.8). Given the heavy burden of behavioral health issues in primary care, efficiently addressing co-occurring risk factors in this setting is critical.

Using Practice Facilitation to Increase Rates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Community Health Centers, North Carolina, 2012-2013: Feasibility, Facilitators, and Barriers.

INTRODUCTION: Practice facilitation involves trained individuals working with practice staff to conduct quality improvement activities and support delivery of evidence-based clinical services. We examined the feasibility of using practice facilitation to assist federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) to increase colorectal cancer screening rates in North Carolina. METHODS: The intervention consisted of 12 months of facilitation in 3 FQHCs. We conducted chart audits to obtain data on changes in documented recommendation for colorectal cancer screening and completed screening. Key informant interviews provided qualitative data on barriers to and facilitators of implementing office systems. RESULTS: Overall, the percentage of eligible patients with a documented colorectal cancer screening recommendation increased from 15% to 29% (P < .001). The percentage of patients up to date with colorectal cancer screening rose from 23% to 34% (P = .03). Key informants in all 3 clinics said the implementation support from the practice facilitator was critical for initiating or improving office systems and that modifying the electronic medical record was the biggest challenge and most time-consuming aspect of implementing office systems changes. Other barriers were staff turnover and reluctance on the part of local gastroenterology practices to perform free or low-cost diagnostic colonoscopies for uninsured or underinsured patients. CONCLUSION: Practice facilitation is a feasible, acceptable, and promising approach for supporting universal colorectal cancer screening in FQHCs. A larger-scale study is warranted.

Factors Related to Implementation and Reach of a Pragmatic Multisite Trial: The My Own Health Report (MOHR) Study.

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors relevant to translating healthcare improvement interventions to different settings are rarely collected systematically. This study articulates a prospective method for assessing and describing contextual factors related to implementation and patient reach of a pragmatic trial in primary care. METHODS: In a qualitative case-series, contextual factors were assessed from the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, focused on systematic health risk assessments and goal setting for unhealthy behaviors and behavioral health in nine primary care practices. Practice staff interviews and observations, guided by a context template were conducted prospectively at three time points. Patient reach was calculated as percentage of patients completing MOHR of those who were offered MOHR and themes describing contextual factors were summarized through an iterative, data immersion process.These included practice members' motivations towards MOHR, practice staff capacity for implementation, practice information system capacity, external resources to support quality improvement, community linkages, and implementation strategy fit with patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically assessing contextual factors prospectively throughout implementation of quality improvement initiatives helps translation to other health care settings. Knowledge of contextual factors is essential for scaling up of effective interventions.

The impact of behavioral and mental health risk assessments on goal setting in primary care.

Patient-centered health risk assessments (HRAs) that screen for unhealthy behaviors, prioritize concerns, and provide feedback may improve counseling, goal setting, and health. To evaluate the effectiveness of routinely administering a patient-centered HRA, My Own Health Report, for diet, exercise, smoking, alcohol, drug use, stress, depression, anxiety, and sleep, 18 primary care practices were randomized to ask patients to complete My Own Health Report (MOHR) before an office visit (intervention) or continue usual care (control). Intervention practice patients were more likely than control practice patients to be asked about each of eight risks (range of differences 5.3-15.8 %, p < 0.001), set goals for six risks (range of differences 3.8-16.6 %, p < 0.01), and improve five risks (range of differences 5.4-13.6 %, p < 0.01). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt clinicians cared more for them and showed more interest in their concerns. Patient-centered health risk assessments improve screening and goal setting.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01825746.

Bridging Research, Practice, and Policy: The "Evidence Academy" Conference Model.

Innovative models to facilitate more rapid uptake of research findings into practice are urgently needed. Community members who engage in research can accelerate this process by acting as adoption agents. We implemented an Evidence Academy conference model bringing together researchers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers across North Carolina to discuss high-impact, life-saving study results. The overall goal is to develop dissemination and implementation strategies for translating evidence into practice and policy. Each 1-day, single-theme, regional meeting focuses on a leading community-identified health priority. The model capitalizes on the power of diverse local networks to encourage broad, common awareness of new research findings. Furthermore, it emphasizes critical reflection and active group discussion on how to incorporate new evidence within and across organizations, health care systems, and communities. During the concluding session, participants are asked to articulate action plans relevant to their individual interests, work setting, or area of expertise.

Applying Cognitive Interviewing to Inform Measurement of Partnership Readiness: A New Approach to Strengthening Community-Academic Research.

BACKGROUND: Partnerships between academic and community-based organizations (CBOs) can richly inform the research process and speed translation of findings. Although immense potential exists to co-conduct research, a better understanding of how to create and sustain equitable relationships between entities with different organizational goals, structures, resources, and expectations is needed. OBJECTIVE: We sought to engage community leaders in the development of an instrument to assess CBOs' interest and capacity to engage with academia in translational research partnerships. METHODS: Leaders from CBOs partnered with our research team in the design of a 50-item instrument to assess organizational experience with applying for federal funding and conducting research studies. Respondents completed a self-administered, paper/pencil survey and a follow-up structured cognitive interview (n = 11). A community advisory board (CAB; n = 8) provided further feedback on the survey through guided discussion. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews and a summary of the CAB discussion informed survey revisions. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews and discussion with community leaders identified language and measurement issues for revision. Importantly, they also revealed an unconscious bias on the part of researchers and offered an opportunity, at an early research stage, to address imbalances in the survey perspective and to develop a more collaborative, equitable approach. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging community leaders enhanced face and content validity and served as a means to form relationships with potential community co-investigators in the future. Cognitive interviewing can enable a bidirectional approach to partnerships, starting with instrument development.