Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Symptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment. METHODS: We interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes. RESULTS: Findings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers]. CONCLUSION: Attention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Patient- and Provider-Level Factors Associated With Telehealth Utilization Across a Multisite, Multiregional Cancer Practice From 2019 to 2021.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS: The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION: We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

Receptivity to a Nurse-Led Symptom Management Intervention Among Highly Symptomatic Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients' quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to "opt-in" to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to "opt-out" if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P < .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. CONCLUSIONS: Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.

Connecting community-delivered evidence-based programs and the healthcare system: Piloting a learning "wellcare" system.

INTRODUCTION: Many evidence-based programs (EBPs) have been determined in randomized controlled trials to be effective, but few studies explore the real-world effectiveness of EBPs implemented in the natural community setting. Our study evaluated whether a novel linked infrastructure would enable such insights and continuous improvement as part of a learning healthcare-community bridged "wellcare" ecosystem. METHODS: We created a secure, web-based data entry and storage platform with a network of Minnesota community-based organizations to record EBP participants' demographics and attendance, and program details. We then linked participant's information to their Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records. With this infrastructure, we conducted a proof of concept, retrospective cohort study by matching EBP participants to REP controls and comparing medical record-documented outcomes over 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: We successfully linked EBP participant records with medical records in 77.6% of cases, and the infrastructure proved feasible and scalable. Still, key challenges remain in obtaining participant consent for data sharing. Upfront resource investments and the availability of REP-like warehouses limit generalizability. Optimal learning will be improved by enhancements that better track program fidelity. Our pilot study established a proof-of-concept, but sample sizes (n = 99 for falls prevention and n = 97 chronic disease/pain management EBP completers) were too small to detect significant differences in hospital admittance as compared to matched controls for either EBP group, (OR = 0.66[0.36, 1.19]) and (OR = 0.81[0.43, 1.54]), respectively. Events were too rare to gather meaningful information about effects on fall rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot demonstrates the feasibility of developing an online infrastructure that connects information from community leaders with medical record documented health outcomes, bridging the knowledge gap between community programs and the health care system. Insights gleaned from our infrastructure can be used to continuously shape community program delivery to reduce the need for formal health care services.

Teaching for implementation: A framework for building implementation research and practice capacity within the translational science workforce.

Implementation science offers a compelling value proposition to translational science. As such, many translational science stakeholders are seeking to recruit, teach, and train an implementation science workforce. The type of workforce that will make implementation happen consists of both implementation researchers and practitioners, yet little guidance exists on how to train such a workforce. We-members of the Advancing Dissemination and Implementation Sciences in CTSAs Working Group-present the Teaching For Implementation Framework to address this gap. We describe the differences between implementation researchers and practitioners and demonstrate what and how to teach them individually and in co-learning opportunities. We briefly comment on educational infrastructures and resources that will be helpful in furthering this type of approach.

Integrating dissemination and implementation sciences within Clinical and Translational Science Award programs to advance translational research: Recommendations to national and local leaders.

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has defined translation as the process of turning observations into interventions that are adopted, sustained, and improve health. Translation must attend to research and community systems and context at multiple levels, and to key stakeholders. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences are informed by an understanding of the critical role of people and systems in disseminating, adopting, and sustaining innovations within real-world settings. Thus, the D&I sciences provides a set of principles that can guide the translational work of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs from basic research to public health. In this special communication, our cross-domain working group of the CTSA consortium, comprised of experts in methods and processes, workforce development, evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and D&I sciences, share a vision of how CTSAs can enhance translation across the translational spectrum through the integration of D&I sciences into the critical areas of methods and processes, workforce development, and evaluation. We propose a set of recommendations for NCATS national and local leaders that are intended to move D&I sciences out of a position of unfamiliarity and ancillary value and into the core identity of who CTSAs are, how they think, and what they do, to advance translation and health.

Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP).

BACKGROUND: The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. METHODS: This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM). DISCUSSION: By the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Evidence-Based Strategies for Clinical Organizations to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy.

The success of vaccination programs is contingent upon irrefutable scientific safety data combined with high rates of public acceptance and population coverage. Vaccine hesitancy, characterized by lack of confidence in vaccination and/or complacency about vaccination that may lead to delay or refusal of vaccination despite the availability of services, threatens to undermine the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. The rapid pace of vaccine development, misinformation in popular and social media, the polarized sociopolitical environment, and the inherent complexities of large-scale vaccination efforts may undermine vaccination confidence and increase complacency about COVID-19 vaccination. Although the experience of recent lethal surges of COVID-19 infections has underscored the value of COVID-19 vaccines, ensuring population uptake of COVID-19 vaccination will require application of multilevel, evidence-based strategies to influence behavior change and address vaccine hesitancy. Recent survey research evaluating public attitudes in the United States toward the COVID-19 vaccine reveals substantial vaccine hesitancy. Building upon efforts at the policy and community level to ensure population access to COVID-19 vaccination, a strong health care system response is critical to address vaccine hesitancy. Drawing on the evidence base in social, behavioral, communication, and implementation science, we review, summarize, and encourage use of interpersonal, individual-level, and organizational interventions within clinical organizations to address this critical gap and improve population adoption of COVID-19 vaccination.

Erratum: Integrating dissemination and implementation sciences within Clinical and Translational Science Award programs to advance translational research: Recommendations to national and local leaders - ERRATUM.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2021.815.].

A New Standard in Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis? An Introduction to Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1703.

Effective immunosuppressive regimens to prevent the development of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are essential to the success of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). After revolutionizing haploidentical transplantation, post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is now being evaluated for HCT performed from related and unrelated donors. In this setting, 2 recent randomized studies have demonstrated lower rates of GVHD and superior GVHD-free, relapse-free survival with PTCy compared with conventional GVHD prophylaxis. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) is currently conducting a large, randomized phase III, multicenter trial (BMT CTN 1703) comparing PTCy/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil to tacrolimus/methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimens in reduced-intensity allogeneic HCT. Here we review the ongoing study, highlight its importance to the field, and explore the possible implications of its results on clinical practice.

Hospital to Community Transitions for Older Adults: An Update for the Practicing Clinician.

Spurred by changes in both population demographics and health care reimbursement, health care providers are responding by using new models to more fully support the posthospital transition. This paper reviews common models for posthospital transition and also describes the Mayo Clinic model for care transition. Models are designed with the intent of managing the cost of health care by reducing 30-day hospital readmissions and improving management of chronic disease. Meta-analyses have proved helpful in identifying the most effective program elements designed to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions. These elements include a bundled and multidisciplinary approach to best meet the needs of patients. Successful care teams also emphasize self-empowerment for both patients and caregivers. There are 2 general types of practice. In 1 model, introduced by Mary Naylor, an advanced-practice provider cares for the patient for a set period of time, which includes home visits. In the second model, introduced by Eric Coleman, a transitions coach, who can be an RN, a social worker, or a trained volunteer, serves as the health care coach, while improving self-efficacy. Both models have been successful. At Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions program has encompassed a 7-year experience, using the services of an advanced practice provider. In previous studies, this model demonstrated a 20.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.8 to 24.1%) decrease in 30-day readmission in controls compared with 12.4% (95% CI, 8.9 to 15.7%) in the control group. Although this model was successful in reducing 30-day readmissions, there was no difference between groups at 180 days. In patients experiencing the highest deciles of cost (8th decile), enrollment in a care transitions program reduced their overall cost by $2700. This cost savings was statistically significant. Both patients and caregivers participating in the program appreciated the home visits and felt more comfortable communicating at home.

Pragmatic cluster randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of enhanced EHR-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of inadequate symptom control among cancer patients is quite high despite the availability of definitive care guidelines and accurate and efficient assessment tools. METHODS: We will conduct a hybrid type 2 stepped wedge pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial to evaluate a guideline-informed enhanced, electronic health record (EHR)-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) care model. Teams of clinicians at five hospitals that care for patients with various cancers will be randomly assigned in steps to the E2C2 intervention. The E2C2 intervention will have two levels of care: level 1 will offer low-touch, automated self-management support for patients reporting moderate sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, depression, and energy deficit symptoms or limitations in physical function (or both). Level 2 will offer nurse-managed collaborative care for patients reporting more intense (severe) symptoms or functional limitations (or both). By surveying and interviewing clinical staff, we will also evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted, evidence-based implementation strategy to support adoption and use of the E2C2 technologies improves patient and clinical outcomes. Finally, we will conduct a mixed methods evaluation to identify disparities in the adoption and implementation of the E2C2 intervention among elderly and rural-dwelling patients with cancer. DISCUSSION: The E2C2 intervention offers a pragmatic, scalable approach to delivering guideline-based symptom and function management for cancer patients. Since discrete EHR-imbedded algorithms drive defining aspects of the intervention, the approach can be efficiently disseminated and updated by specifying and modifying these centralized EHR algorithms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03892967. Registered on 25 March 2019.

Disparity on Unplanned Readmission in Melanoma Patients: A National Cancer Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to analyze associated factors of 30-day hospital readmission after surgery for melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of postoperative 30-day unplanned readmission in patients with melanoma in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). RESULTS: Higher odds of unplanned readmission were found in non-white patients compared to white, uninsured patients compared to those with private insurance, tumors with invasive behavior compared to in situ, presence of ulceration, American Joint Committee on Cancer stages greater than II, and location in the extremities. Lower odds of unplanned readmission were found in women living in areas where the percentage of adults who did not graduate from high school was below 13.0% with an annual income of $38,000 or more, who were treated in Academic/Research Programs or Integrated Network Cancer Programs. CONCLUSION: Non-white patients and low-income zip-codes were associated with unplanned readmission.

Survival Disparities in Male Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We evaluated factors associated with mortality among men with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Database to identify men with breast cancer and evaluated factors associated with mortality, using a Cox regression model. RESULTS: Black patients experienced an increased risk of death from any cause compared to white patients [hazard ratio (HR)=1.19, 95%CI=1.05-1.37]. Patients with government insurance had a greater risk of death compared to privately insured patients (HR=1.57, 95%CI=1.41-1.75). When compared to patients with an income of >$46,000, those with an income <$30,000 presented an increased risk of death (HR=1.35, 95%CI=1.14-1.60). Finally, patients treated at a comprehensive community cancer program (HR=1.129, 95%CI=1.021-1.248), community cancer program (HR=1.164, 95%CI=1.010-1.343), or integrated network cancer program (HR=1.216; 95%CI=1.056-1.401) experienced elevated risk of death compared to those treated at academic/research-programs. CONCLUSION: Race, insurance, income, education, and facility type are associated with the risk of mortality in male patients with breast cancer.

Conversations About Financial Issues in Routine Oncology Practices: A Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To describe the frequency, content, dynamics, and patterns of cost conversations in academic medical oncology across tumor types. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 529 audio recordings between May 3, 2012, to September 23, 2014, from a prospective three-site communication study in which patients at any stage of management for any solid tumor malignancy were seen in routine oncology appointments. Recordings were deidentified, transcribed, and flagged for any mention of cost. We coded encounters and used qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Financial issues were discussed in 151 (28%) of 529 recordings. Conversations lasted shorter than 2 minutes on average. Patients/caregivers raised a majority of discussions (106 of 151), and 40% of cost concerns raised by patients/caregivers were not verbally acknowledged by clinicians. Social service referrals were made only six times. Themes from content analysis were related to insurance eligibility/process, work insecurity, cost of drugs, cost used as tool to influence medical decision making, health care-specific costs, and basic needs. Financial concerns influenced oncology work processes via test or medication coverage denials, creating paperwork for clinicians, potentially influencing patient involvement in trials, and leading to medication self-rationing or similar behaviors. Typically, financial concerns were associated with negative emotions. CONCLUSION: Financial issues were raised in approximately one in four academic oncology visits. These brief conversations were usually initiated by patients/caregivers, went frequently unaddressed by clinicians, and seemed to influence medical decision making and work processes and contribute to distress. Themes identified shed light on the kinds of gaps that must be addressed to help patients with cancer cope with the rising cost of care.

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Developing a toolkit to implement the Statin Choice Conversation Aid at scale: application of a work reduction model.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for determining whether to use statins to prevent cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. We sought to develop a toolkit to facilitate the cross-organizational spread and scale of a SDM intervention called the Statin Choice Conversation Aid (SCCA) by (i) assessing the work stakeholders must do to implement the tool; and (ii) orienting the resulting toolkit's components to communicate and mitigate this work. METHODS: We conducted multi-level and mixed methods (survey, interview, observation, focus group) characterizations of the contexts of 3 health systems (n = 86, 84, and 26 primary care clinicians) as they pertained to the impending implementation of the SCCA. We merged the data within implementation outcome domains of feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Using Normalization Process Theory, we then characterized and categorized the work stakeholders did to implement the tool. We used clinician surveys and IP address-based tracking to calculate SCCA usage over time and judged how stakeholder effort was allocated to influence outcomes at 6 and 18 months. After assessing the types and impact of the work, we developed a multi-component toolkit. RESULTS: At baseline, the three contexts differed regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementation. The work of adopting the tool was allocated across many strategies in complex and interdependent ways to optimize these domains. The two systems that allocated the work strategically had higher uptake (5.2 and 2.9 vs. 1.1 uses per clinician per month at 6 months; 3.8 and 2.1 vs. 0.4 at 18 months, respectively) than the system that did not. The resulting toolkit included context self-assessments intended to guide stakeholders in considering the early work of SCCA implementation; and webinars, EMR integration guides, video demonstrations, and an implementation team manual aimed at supporting this work. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a multi-component toolkit for facilitating the scale-up and spread of a tool to promote SDM across clinical settings. The theory-based approach we employed aimed to distinguish systems primed for adoption and support the work they must do to achieve implementation. Our approach may have value in orienting the development of multi-component toolkits and other strategies aimed at facilitating the efficient scale up of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02375815 .

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.