Similar skills, different frames: a thematic analysis exploring conceptualizations held by community-based organization practitioners and academics regarding skills to use evidence-based interventions to address cancer inequities.

BACKGROUND: Community-based organizations (CBOs) are critical partners in delivering evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to address cancer inequities. However, CBO practitioners do not typically have access to opportunities to build the necessary capacity (skills, knowledge, motivation, and resources) for using EBIs. Although capacity-building interventions can offer a solution, inconsistent definitions and measurements of capacity limit the ability to develop and evaluate such efforts. We explored how and why conceptualizations of core skills for EBI use differ between practitioners and academics addressing cancer and other health inequities. We anchored the inquiry with a commonly used set of target skills for EBI capacity-building efforts. METHODS: The study was conducted by an interdisciplinary team of academic researchers and CBO practitioners. We gathered data through semi-structured, hour-long interviews with practitioners and academics working to address cancer and other health inequities (n = 19). After hearing a brief vignette about a CBO addressing cervical cancer inequities, participants considered a widely accepted list of skills for EBI use that included assessing needs, engaging stakeholders, and selecting, adapting, implementing, evaluating, and sustaining the EBI. We used a team-based, reflexive thematic analysis approach grounded in critical and constructivist perspectives. RESULTS: Overall, the original list resonated with practitioners and academics and they added new skills to the list (cultural humility and systems change). Practitioners' responses described skills from the reference point of addressing broader community needs and context and achieving change over the long term, emphasizing aspects of health promotion in their descriptions. Academics offered a mix of perspectives, with some focused on addressing community needs (and related flexibility regarding EBIs) but more emphasized skills needed to deliver a specific EBI to achieve a focused set of health and equity outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant opportunity to leverage complementary expertise and perspectives held by practitioners and academics addressing cancer inequities. However, the different frames utilized suggest proactive efforts will be required to find alignment across groups, particularly in valuing diverse contributions and identifying relevant outcomes of interest for each group. Such alignment is critical to designing effective capacity-building interventions and supporting the routine utilization of EBIs to address cancer inequities.

Priority skills for equity-focused, evidence-based cancer control in community-based organizations: A group concept mapping analysis with academics and practitioners.

Introduction: Community-based organizations (CBOs) are important equity-promoting delivery channels for evidence-based interventions (EBIs). However, CBO practitioners often cannot access needed support to build EBI skills. Additionally, the capacity-building literature is hindered by inconsistent definitions, limited use of validated measures, and an emphasis on the perspectives of EBI developers versus implementers. To address these gaps, we explored commonalities and differences between CBO practitioners and academics in conceptualizing and prioritizing core EBI skills. Methods: We utilized Group Concept Mapping, a mixed-methods approach connecting qualitative data (e.g., regarding the range of critical EBI skills) and quantitative data (e.g., sorting and ranking data regarding unique skills) to create conceptual maps integrating perspectives from diverse participants. A total of 34 practitioners and 30 academics working with cancer inequities participated in the study. Results: Participants nominated 581 core skills for EBI use, and our team (including practitioners and academics) identified 98 unique skills from this list. Participants sorted them into conceptual groups, yielding five clusters: (1) using data and evaluation, (2) selecting and adapting EBIs, (3) connecting with community members, (4) building diverse and equitable partnerships, and (5) managing EBI implementation. The ordering of importance and presence of skill clusters were similar across groups. Overall, importance was rated higher than presence, suggesting capacity gaps. Conclusions: There are helpful commonalities between practitioners' and academics' views of core EBI skills in CBOs and apparent capacity gaps. However, underlying patterns suggest that differences between the groups' perceptions warrant further exploration.

Measuring capacity to use evidence-based interventions in community-based organizations: A comprehensive, scoping review.

Introduction: Community-based organizations (CBOs) are well-positioned to incorporate research evidence, local expertise, and contextual factors to address health inequities. However, insufficient capacity limits use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in these settings. Capacity-building implementation strategies are popular, but a lack of standard models and validated measures hinders progress in the field. To advance the literature, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review. Methods: With a reference librarian, we executed a comprehensive search strategy of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and EBSCO Global Health. We included articles that addressed implementation science, capacity-building, and CBOs. Of 5527 articles, 99 met our inclusion criteria, and we extracted data using a double-coding process. Results: Of the 99 articles, 47% defined capacity explicitly, 31% defined it indirectly, and 21% did not define it. Common concepts in definitions were skills, knowledge/expertise, and resources. Of the 57 articles with quantitative analysis, 48 (82%) measured capacity, and 11 (23%) offered psychometric data for the capacity measures. Of the 99 studies, 40% focused exclusively on populations experiencing inequities and 22% included those populations to some extent. The bulk of the studies came from high-income countries. Conclusions: Implementation scientists should 1) be explicit about models and definitions of capacity and strategies for building capacity, 2) specify expected multi-level implementation outcomes, 3) develop and use validated measures for quantitative work, and 4) integrate equity considerations into the conceptualization and measurement of capacity-building efforts. With these refinements, we can ensure that the necessary supports reach CBO practitioners and critical partners for addressing health inequities.