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.

Practitioner perspectives on equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control.

Longstanding inequities in cancer prevention and control require novel approaches to improve evidence-based intervention implementation. Exploring and elevating the perspectives of cancer prevention and control practitioners working to advance health equity and equitably implement evidence-based interventions is an important yet underutilized step among researchers working in this space. The purpose of this study was to explore practitioners' perspectives of how health equity is defined and integrated into their work, challenges of advancing health equity for implementation in local settings, and associated strategies. We conducted virtual key informant interviews and focus groups with 16 US practitioners (e.g. clinicians, health administrators, public health professionals) in 2021-2022. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were coded using inductive content analysis and summarized into themes. Four major themes emerged: (i) how health equity is conceptualized as a process and outcome; (ii) need to shift equity mindsets; (iii) importance of community partnerships; (iv) organizational policies and strategies for fostering equity in implementation. Respondents noted the need for research and medical communities to learn about the importance and benefits of allowing communities to shape implementation to advance equity in the delivery of evidence-based interventions and outcomes. Additionally, respondents emphasized that institutional leaders should initiate changes regarding equitable implementation at the organizational- and system-levels. Respondents endorsed the need to address equity issues related to the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs, practices, and policies. Many findings can be applied beyond cancer prevention and control to support equitable implementation and outcomes more generally.

We need practitioners' input to improve how interventions can help those who need them most. In cancer prevention and control, we asked practitioners what they think about health equity in their work and problems they face. Our findings show how practitioners build strong community partnerships and make changes in health care and public health to improve health equity. These findings can be used in other health areas.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities.

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

BACKGROUND: Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area. METHODS: Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions. RESULTS: Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

Identifying Cancer Care Team Competencies to Improve Care Coordination in Multiteam Systems: A Modified Delphi Study.

PURPOSE: Identifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams-or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS. CONCLUSION: This study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science.

Collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society. In addition, unprecedented technological advances create new opportunities to capitalize on a broader range of expertise and information in scientific collaborations. Yet rapid increases in the demand for scientific collaborations have outpaced changes in the factors needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures and policies, scientific culture, and funding opportunities. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) field arose with the goal of empirically addressing questions from funding agencies, administrators, and scientists regarding the value of team science (TS) and strategies for successfully leading, engaging in, facilitating, and supporting science teams. Closely related fields have rich histories studying teams, groups, organizations, and management and have built a body of evidence for effective teaming in contexts such as industry and the military. Yet few studies had focused on science teams. Unique contextual factors within the scientific enterprise create an imperative to study these teams in context, and provide opportunities to advance understanding of other complex forms of collaboration. This review summarizes the empirical findings from the SciTS literature, which center around five key themes: the value of TS, team composition and its influence on TS performance, formation of science teams, team processes central to effective team functioning, and institutional influences on TS. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in the context of new research opportunities to further advance SciTS evidence and better inform policies and practices for effective TS. (PsycINFO Database Record

Alumni perspectives on career preparation during a postdoctoral training program: a qualitative study.

Published evaluations of career preparation of alumni from long-standing postdoctoral fellowship programs in the biomedical sciences are limited and often focus on quantitative analysis of data from extant publicly available sources. Qualitative methods provide the opportunity to gather robust information about specific program elements from structured postdoctoral training programs and the influence of this training on subsequent career paths of alumni. In-depth interviews with a subset of the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP) alumni (n=27), representing more than 25 years of the program's history and multiple career sectors, were conducted to assess alumni reflections on the training environment and career preparation during their time in the CPFP. NVivo software was used to analyze data and identify major themes. Four main themes emerged from these interviews, including: the value of structured training curriculum, mentorship, transdisciplinary environment, and professional identity. Even when reflecting on training that occurred one to two decades earlier, alumni were able to highlight specific components of a structured postdoctoral training program as influencing their research and career trajectories. These results may have relevance for those interested in assessing how postdoctoral training can influence fellows throughout their careers and understanding salient features of structured programs.

Independent Association of Postdoctoral Training with Subsequent Careers in Cancer Prevention.

The purpose of this study was to examine the career paths of alumni from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP), a structured in-house postdoctoral training program of 3-4 years duration, and specifically what proportion of the alumni were currently performing cancer prevention-related activities. The analyses here included 119 CPFP alumni and 85 unsuccessful CPFP applicants, all of whom completed postdoctoral training between 1987-2011 and are currently employed. Postdoctoral training experiences and current career outcomes data were collected via online surveys. Differences between groups were assessed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test p-values and subsequent regression analyses adjusted for differences between the groups. Compared to 15.3% of unsuccessful CPFP applicants, 52.1% of CPFP alumni (odds ratio [OR] = 4.99, 95% confidence interval [95% CI): 1.91-13.0) were currently spending the majority of their time working in cancer prevention. Among those doing any cancer prevention-focused work, 54.3% of CPFP alumni spent the majority of their time performing cancer prevention research activities when compared to 25.5% of unsuccessful applicants (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 1.38-13.2). In addition to the independent effect of the NCI CPFP, scientific discipline, and employment sector were also associated with currently working in cancer prevention and involvement in cancer prevention research-related activities. These results from a structured postdoctoral training program are relevant not only to the cancer prevention community but also to those interested in evaluating alignment of postdoctoral training programs with available and desired career paths more broadly.