Twenty years of collaborative research to enhance community practice for cancer prevention and control.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) was established in 2002 to conduct applied research and undertake related activities to translate evidence into practice, with a special focus on the unmet needs of populations at higher risk of getting cancer and dying from it. A network of academic, public health and community partners, CPCRN is a thematic research network of the Prevention Research Centers Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) has been a consistent collaborator. The CPCRN has fostered research on geographically dispersed populations through cross-institution partnerships across the network. Since its inception, the CPCRN has applied rigorous scientific methods to fill knowledge gaps in the application and implementation of evidence-based interventions, and it has developed a generation of leading investigators in the dissemination and implementation of effective public health practices. This article reflects on how CPCRN addressed national priorities, contributed to CDC's programs, emphasized health equity and impacted science over the past twenty years and potential future directions.

Developing Capacity in Dissemination and Implementation Research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Evaluation of a Training Workshop.

As the demand for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research grows globally, there is a need for D&I capacity building in regions where D&I science is underrepresented. The Workshop on Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (WONDIRH) was aimed for participants in the Eastern Mediterranean region to (1) appreciate the complex process of bridging research and practice in a variety of real-world settings, and (2) develop research that balances rigor with relevance and employs study designs and methods appropriate for the complex processes involved in D&I. The present exploratory study investigates participants' satisfaction with the workshop, the enhancement of their self-rated confidence in D&I skills, as well as their intention to apply the learned content into practice. The workshop included four weekly 90-min virtual interactive training sessions in conjunction with open access content from the National Cancer Institute Training Institute in Implementation and Dissemination Research in Cancer (TIDIRC). We applied a one-group pre-post design for the evaluation of workshop. Participants were invited to self-rate their confidence in D&I competencies (15 items, pre and post workshop). At the end of the workshop, participants additionally were asked to rate their satisfaction (5 items, 1-5 scales), and their intention to apply the learned content into practice (4 items, 1-5 scales). Of the 77 workshop participants, 34 completed the evaluation. Confidence improved between pre- and post-workshop assessments in all 15 self-rated D&I competencies. Respondents were generally satisfied with the workshop (mean satisfaction range 3.82-4.26 across the 5 items) and endorsed intentions to apply workshop topics (mean intention range 4.03-4.35 across the 4 items). This initial workshop demonstrated the ability to attract and engage participants to enhance their confidence in D&I research competencies and skills and to build capacity in D&I research. Future efforts should consider offering targeted training for researchers at different stages and to clearly articulate learning objectives. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00067-y.

Improving Evidence-Based Program Repositories: Introducing the Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP) Web Repository.

To reduce the research to practice gap, promoting the utility of evidence-based repositories is essential among both practitioners and researchers. Organizing these repositories to address the needs of these audiences requires a user-centered design approach as proposed recently in an article by Harden et al, 2020. This commentary builds on the proposed solutions to introduce a recently redesigned Evidence-Based Cancer Control Programs (EBCCP) web repository (formerly Research-Tested Intervention Programs (RTIPs)) from the National Cancer Institute. Specifically, we describe the user-centered redesign process, strategies for broader dissemination of the repository using digital tools and provide future directions for the evidence-based program repository.

Future directions for implementation science at the National Cancer Institute: Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot initiative seeks to accelerate cancer research for the USA. One of the scientific priorities identified by the Moonshot's Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) of scientific experts was the implementation of evidence-based approaches. In September 2019, the NCI launched the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3 or "Centers") initiative to advance this Moonshot priority. The vision of the ISC3 is to promote the development of research centers to build capacity and research in high-priority areas of cancer control implementation science (e.g., scale-up and spread, sustainability and adaptation, and precision implementation), build implementation laboratories within community and clinical settings, improve the state of measurement and methods, and improve the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based cancer control interventions. This paper highlights the research agenda, vision, and strategic direction for these Centers and encourages transdisciplinary scientists to learn more about opportunities to collaborate with these Centers.

Development and evaluation of the SPeeding Research-tested INTerventions (SPRINT) training program.

The National Cancer Institute established a dissemination and implementation accelerator program called SPeeding Research-tested INTerventions (SPRINT) to improve the uptake of evidence-based interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the origin, structure, and goals of the SPRINT program, and present evaluation results from the first two cohorts of the program. Qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey) data collected from participants were used to evaluate the course and inform program improvement efforts. The majority of the participants (over 90% in both cohorts) rated the course highly, and over 80% would recommend the course to other researchers. Most participants indicated knowing relatively little about business model concepts before SPRINT, but after SPRINT, nearly all respondents felt that they had at least "some" knowledge of each business model component. Participants also indicated that they learned about the product-market fit of their intervention and gained insights from customer discovery interviews that would enable them to make their intervention more "stakeholder focused". Participants also indicated that they plan to use the knowledge and skills they gained during the SPRINT program in their future work. Feedback from participants was used by the management team to implement various program improvements to better serve the next cohort of participants. While behavioral researchers face significant barriers to commercializing their interventions, they recognize the importance of translating their research into practice. Training researchers to consider scale-up, implementation, and commercialization from the outset can help reduce the number of proven interventions that are never used in practice.

Building capacity: a cross-sectional evaluation of the US Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, the National Institute of Health (NIH) initiated the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) program. Over its first 5 years, TIDIRH provided an in-person, week-long training to 197 investigators who were new to the dissemination and implementation (D&I) field. This paper evaluates the long-term impact of TIDIRH on trainees' use of D&I methods, collaborations, and research funding. METHODS: Trainees were selected to participate through a competitive process. We compared the 197 trainees to 125 unselected applicants (UAs) whose application score was within one standard deviation of the mean for all trainees' scores for the same application year. A portfolio analysis examined electronic applications for NIH peer-reviewed funding submitted by trainees and UAs between 2011 and 2019. A survey of trainees and UAs was conducted in 2016, as was a faculty survey among the 87 individuals who served as TIDIRH instructors. RESULTS: A major goal of TIDIRH was to build the field, at least in part through networking and collaboration. Thirty-eight percent of trainees indicated they had extensive contact with faculty following the training, and an additional 38% indicated they had at least limited contact. Twenty-four percent of trainees had extensive collaboration with other fellows post-TIDIRH, and 43% had at least limited contact. Collaborative activities included the full range of academic activities, including manuscript development, grant writing, and consultation/collaboration on research studies. The portfolio analysis combining grant mechanisms showed that overall, TIDIRH trainees submitted more peer-reviewed NIH grants per person than UA and had significantly better funding outcomes (25% vs 19% funded, respectively). The greatest difference was for large research project, program/center, and cooperative agreement grants mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this evaluation found that TIDIRH is achieving its three primary goals: (1) building a pipeline of D&I investigators, (2) creating a network of scholars to build the field, and (3) improving funding outcomes for D&I grants.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN): Advancing public health and implementation science.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is one of the thematic networks of the United States' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Prevention Research Centers. Network members are academic research centers in the United States who collaborate with public health and community partners to accelerate the use of evidence-based interventions in communities to reduce the burden of cancer, especially among underserved populations. CPCRN studies include geographically dispersed populations, cross-institution partnerships, and opportunities for collaborative learning across network centers. Since its inception in 2002, CPCRN has worked to translate research on community-based intervention strategies into practice to improve cancer screening and reduce cancer risk. This commentary describes CPCRN's role in contributing to public health and the field of dissemination and implementation science. In addition, CDC and the National Cancer Institute describe how their joint support of the network contributes to each organization's goals and missions.

Correction to: Lung cancer screening: an emerging cancer control issue presents opportunities for an awareness campaign in rural Michigan.

In the original publication of the article, the co-author name (Antoinette Percy-Laurry) was misspelled during the publication process. The coauthor name has been corrected in this correction.

Customer discovery as a tool for moving behavioral interventions into the marketplace: insights from the NCI SPRINT program.

The National Cancer Institute established a dissemination and implementation accelerator program called Speeding Research-tested INTerventions (SPRINT) in order to expedite the translation of behavioral research into practice. The goal of SPRINT is to introduce researchers to a new method for moving their research into practice in order to increase the real-world impact of their evidence-based interventions. The goal of this article is to present case studies on three teams that have completed the SPRINT program to date. Each case study provides a description of the intervention the team came into the program with, the team's motivation for participating in the SPRINT program, the team's experience in the program, lessons learned from "customer discovery" interviews conducted by the team during the course, and the team's future plans for their intervention. The case studies suggest that by focusing on behavioral researchers, SPRINT addresses an unmet need in the commercialization training space; that the definition of "success" can vary across SPRINT projects; that identifying and engaging "payors" for behavioral interventions is an ongoing challenge; and that there are potential "misalignments" between the research process and market demands. Overall, these examples show that customer discovery is a potentially useful method for making interventions more responsive to the needs of stakeholders, and that researchers can benefit from learning the "language" of business and working with individuals who have business experience before trying to move their research from the lab to the real world.

Moving family interventions into the real world: What matters to oncology stakeholders?

BACKGROUND: Family interventions targeting patients and/or informal caregivers are beneficial, but few have been integrated in oncology clinical care. Understanding diverse stakeholder perspectives may inform implementation and dissemination efforts. METHODS: We are currently conducting a randomized controlled trial of CareSTEPS, a telephone-based intervention for caregivers of advanced lung cancer patients. CareSTEPS seeks to improve caregiver and patient self-care behaviors, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. With an eye toward integrating CareSTEPS into clinical care, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 7 experts in integrated care [practice thought leaders] and 26 individuals representing different oncology stakeholder groups (i.e., potential end users of CareSTEPS including counselors, social workers, nurse specialists, and psychologists) [N = 13], decision-makers, including physicians and administrators [N = 6], and key dissemination partners, including representatives from cancer and caregiving advocacy groups [N = 7]). Questions focused on existing caregiver support services, barriers to integrating care for caregivers in routine patient care, and possible models for clinical uptake and dissemination. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: Stakeholders noted a mismatch between caregiver needs and services offered, and expressed interest in broader service offerings. Barriers for integrating caregiver support into clinical care included inadequate funding, lack of interdisciplinary training among providers, and concern that research-based interventions are often not flexible enough to roll out into clinical practice. To secure buy-in, stakeholders noted the importance of evaluating intervention cost, cost savings, and revenue generation. Possible avenues for dissemination, through bottom-up and top-down (e.g., policy change) approaches, were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the importance of evaluating outcomes important to diverse oncology stakeholder groups to speed translation of research into practice. They also suggest that pragmatic trials are needed that allow for flexibility in the delivery of family interventions and that consider the resource limitations of clinical care.

Cancer control planning: self-assessment for pre-planning, development, implementation and evaluation of national cancer control plans.

The development of cancer control plans as a clearly defined concept began in the U.S. in the early 1990s. On an international level, the same concept has been described as "national cancer control planning" or national cancer control plan (NCCP) development and implementation. Recent efforts by the National Cancer Institute's Center for Global Health and its partners have increased international and country-level interest in NCCPs. Central to the development of these plans has been a need for countries to understand the crucial factors and foundational elements necessary to develop and successfully implement a national cancer plan. This article describes the process by which a tool developed by the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) helps countries and international partners assess their efforts to develop and implement a NCCP.

Evaluating centralized technical assistance as an implementation strategy to improve cancer prevention and control.

PURPOSE: In 2015-2016, the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership provided technical assistance workshops to support 22 cancer coalitions in increasing human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake and increasing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in their local communities. As national efforts continue to invest in providing technical assistance, there is a current gap in understanding its use as a strategy to accelerate implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) for cancer prevention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of technical assistance on the participants' knowledge, attitudes, and skills for implementing EBIs in their local context and enhancing state team collaboration. METHODS: Data were collected August-November 2017 using web-based questionnaires from 44 HPV workshop participants and 66 CRC workshop participants. RESULTS: Both HPV vaccination and CRC screening workshop participants reported changes in knowledge, attitudes, and skills related to implementing EBIs in their local state context. Several participants reported increased abilities in communicating and coordinating with partners in their states and utilizing additional implementation strategies to increase HPV vaccination uptake and CRC screening rates. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest that providing technical assistance to members of comprehensive cancer control coalitions is useful in promoting collaborations and building capacity for implementing EBIs for cancer prevention and control.

Collaborating to conquer cancer: the role of partnerships in comprehensive cancer control.

Comprehensive cancer control celebrated its twentieth anniversary in 2018. A dedicated group of national partners formed the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership (CCCNP) at the same time that CDC's National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program was formed. The CCCNP has supported the development and growth of comprehensive cancer control from its inception. The CCCNP mirrors how coalitions function at the state, tribe, territory, and Pacific Island Jurisdiction level. We provide a national example of how 19 leading cancer organizations work together with a unified vision to support cancer control efforts in the United States (U.S.). What follows is an overview of the CCCNP, its vision, mission, and structure and a description of how this partnership has evolved over the past 20 years. The importance of collaboration is highlighted. Two states, South Dakota and Kansas, provide examples of how working with partners through the cancer coalition has advanced their state's cancer control agenda. Closing thoughts on the future work of the CCCNP are provided, including a continued focus on supporting health equity; better engagement and support of CCC coalition leaders; and informing efforts to develop a national cancer control plan for the United States.

Comprehensive cancer control in the U.S.: summarizing twenty years of progress and looking ahead.

In order to celebrate the accomplishments of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP), the Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partners (CCCNP) developed this Special Issue on Cancer Causes and Control. This, the third Special Issue on Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC), is a reflection of 20 years of building successful partnerships to prevent and control cancer; planning and implementing strategic cancer control; collaborating to address national cancer prevention and control priorities; evaluating efforts; sharing successes; and, in later years, serving as a model for global cancer control planning and implementation. The CDC currently supports cancer control planning and implementation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, eight tribes or tribal organizations, and seven Pacific Island Jurisdictions and U.S. territories through the NCCCP. CCC is an approach that brings together multi-sector partners to address the cancer burden in a community collectively by leveraging existing resources and identifying and addressing cancer related issues and needs. The Comprehensive Cancer Control National Partnership (CCCNP), a partnership of national organizations, has been committed to supporting comprehensive cancer control efforts since 1999. We summarize the efforts described in this Special Issue. We also describe opportunities and critical elements to continue the momentum for comprehensive cancer control well into the future.

Lung cancer screening: an emerging cancer control issue presents opportunities for an awareness campaign in rural Michigan.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States representing about 25% of all cancer deaths. The risk from smoking has increased over time with racial/ethnic minorities and disadvantaged populations having higher smoking rates and experiencing greater burden of lung cancer compared to other populations. Rural populations, in particular, experience higher rates of tobacco usage associated with increased incidence of lung cancer. National efforts to identify lung cancer in its early stage would greatly benefit high-risk populations, consequently reducing advanced cancers and potentially decreasing smoking rates. In 2013, lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography was recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force for early detection of lung cancer. These guidelines were developed after the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. The National Lung Screening Trial study showed a 20% reduction in deaths of participants who were current or former heavy smokers who were screened with low-dose computed tomography versus those screened by chest X-ray. In response to this evidence and using state lung cancer burden data and local smoking rates as a guide, Michigan implemented a lung cancer screening awareness campaign in the rural northern, lower peninsula. Awareness of lung cancer screening was increased through the use of a variety of media including gas station/convenience store small media, digital media, radio broadcast media, and the use and marketing of a website that provided lung cancer screening information and resources.

Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported implementation science for over a decade. We explore the application of implementation science across the cancer control continuum, including prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship. METHODS: We reviewed funding trends of implementation science grants funded by the NCI between 2000 and 2012. We assessed study characteristics including cancer topic, position on the T2-T4 translational continuum, intended use of frameworks, study design, settings, methods, and replication and cost considerations. RESULTS: We identified 67 NCI grant awards having an implementation science focus. R01 was the most common mechanism, and the total number of all awards increased from four in 2003 to 15 in 2012. Prevention grants were most frequent (49.3%) and cancer treatment least common (4.5%). Diffusion of Innovations and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) were the most widely reported frameworks, but it is unclear how implementation science models informed planned study measures. Most grants (69%) included mixed methods, and half reported replication and cost considerations (49.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation science in cancer research is active and diverse but could be enhanced by greater focus on measures development, assessment of how conceptual frameworks and their constructs lead to improved dissemination and implementation outcomes, and harmonization of measures that are valid, reliable, and practical across multiple settings.

Research to reality: moving evidence into practice through an online community of practice.

How can a community of practice help further the practical application of cancer control research? In 2011, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched an online community of practice, Research to Reality (R2R). R2R aims to infuse evidence-based strategies into communities by engaging researchers and practitioners in a joint approach to research dissemination. To measure community growth and engagement, NCI measures data across 3 program domains: content, interaction, and activity. NCI uses Web analytics, usability testing, and content analyses to manage and evaluate R2R. As of December 2013, R2R had more than 1,700 registered members. More than 500 researchers and practitioners register for the monthly cyber-seminars, and 40% return each month. R2R hosts more than 15,500 page views and 5,000 site visits in an average month. This article describes the process of convening this online community and quantifies our experiences to date.

Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework for creating virtual communities of practice to translate cancer research into practice.

INTRODUCTION: Translating government-funded cancer research into clinical practice can be accomplished via virtual communities of practice that include key players in the process: researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries. This study, conducted from November 2012 through January 2013, examined issues that key stakeholders believed should be addressed to create and sustain government-sponsored virtual communities of practice to integrate cancer control research, practice, and policy and demonstrates how concept mapping can be used to present relevant issues. METHODS: Key stakeholders brainstormed statements describing what is needed to create and sustain virtual communities of practice for moving cancer control research into practice. Participants rated them on importance and feasibility, selected most relevant statements, and sorted them into clusters. I used concept mapping to examine the issues identified and multidimensional scaling analyses to create a 2-dimensional conceptual map of the statement clusters. RESULTS: Participants selected 70 statements and sorted them into 9 major clusters related to creating and sustaining virtual communities of practice: 1) standardization of best practices, 2) external validity, 3) funding and resources, 4) social learning and collaboration, 5) cooperation, 6) partnerships, 7) inclusiveness, 8) social determinants and cultural competency, and 9) preparing the environment. Researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries were in relative agreement regarding issues of importance for creating these communities. CONCLUSION: Virtual communities of practice can be created to address the needs of researchers, health care practitioners, and intermediaries by using input from these key stakeholders. Increasing linkages between these subgroups can improve the translation of research into practice. Similarities and differences between groups can provide valuable information to assist the government in developing virtual communities of practice.

Building cancer control capacity: a mixed-method evaluation of the Research to Reality (R2R) Mentorship Program.

In 2011, the National Cancer Institute launched the Research to Reality (R2R) Pilot Mentorship Program to enhance mentees' core evidence-based public health (EBPH) competencies. In this article, we describe the program and its evaluation results and the program's ability to improve participants' EBPH competencies and appropriateness of program components. Program evaluation consisted of a pre/post program competency questionnaire and interviews with mentees, mentors, mentees' supervisors, and program staff. Mentees reported the same or higher rating in every competency at end of the program, with average increase of 0.6 points on a 4-point scale; the greatest improvements were seen in policy development/program planning. Mentorship programs are a promising strategy to develop EBPH competencies, provide guidance, and disseminate and adapt evidence-based interventions within real-world context.

News from the CDC: collaborations to build capacity at the community level in cancer prevention and control.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a national network of ten academic centers funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, whose mission is to accelerate the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities through increased understanding of program dissemination and implementation. CPCRN researchers collaborate to raise awareness, provide education, guidance, and technical assistance to reduce cancer incidence and mortality rates in their communities. The CPCRN capacity building at the community level involves implementing evidence-based programs, policies, and strategies recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force to decrease obesity, increase physical activity, promote healthier behaviors, decrease tobacco use, and improve the appropriate use of cancer screening tests. These accomplishments demonstrate how the collaboration of federal, academic, and community-based organizations can be mutually beneficial by developing partnerships, research infrastructure, and community capacity that can catalyze behavior change.