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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evolution of Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T.: moving research into practice.

Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are not broadly implemented, despite widespread availability of programs, policies, and guidelines. Systematic processes for integrating EBIs with community preference remain challenging for cancer control and prevention, as well as other areas. The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T) Web portal provides a platform to access data, EBIs, and resources to foster local partnerships and assist public health researchers and practitioners design, implement, and evaluate evidence-based cancer control programs. This article summarizes the evolution of P.L.A.N.E.T. and describes effective and innovative Web 2.0 strategies to increase Web visits, create more interactive platforms for researchers and practitioners to integrate evidence-based resources, community preferences, and the complex context in which programs and policies are implemented. Lessons learned could benefit public health settings and reach low-income, high-risk communities. Researchers, community practitioners, and government partnerships should continue to develop and test innovative ways to address pressing issues in cancer control, health disparities, and health delivery.

National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions.

To address the vast gap between current knowledge and practice in the area of dissemination and implementation research, we address terminology, provide examples of successful applications of this research, discuss key sources of support, and highlight directions and opportunities for future advances. There is a need for research testing approaches to scaling up and sustaining effective interventions, and we propose that further advances in the field will be achieved by focusing dissemination and implementation research on 5 core values: rigor and relevance, efficiency, collaboration, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge.

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.

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.

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.

Comprehensive cancer control: progress and accomplishments.

The potential for Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) across the nation has been realized in the last decade with 69 Coalitions developing and implementing CCC plans. Many partners at all levels--national, state, jurisdictional, tribal and communities--have contributed to this success. This article details the contribution of these partners across these various levels, with a selection of the many activities contributing to this success. Consequently the cancer burden, although still of major importance, continues to be addressed in significant ways. Although there are future challenges, CCC coalitions continue to play an important role in addressing the cancer burden.

Research and comprehensive cancer control coalitions.

The goal of cancer control research is "to generate basic knowledge about how to monitor and change individual and collective behavior and to ensure that knowledge is translated into practice and policy rapidly, effectively, and efficiently" (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences in Cancer control framework and synthese rationale, 2010). Research activities span the cancer control continuum from prevention to early detection and diagnosis through treatment and survivorship (Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences in Cancer control framework and synthese rationale, 2010). While significant advancements have been made in understanding, preventing and treating cancer in the past few decades, these benefits have yielded disproportionate results in cancer morbidity and mortality across various socioeconomic and racial/ethnic subgroups (Ozols et al in J Clin Oncol, 25(1):146-1622, 2007). It has been a high priority since the beginning of the Comprehensive Cancer Control (CCC) movement to utilize research in the development and implementation of cancer plans in the states, tribes and tribal organizations, territories and US Pacific Island Jurisdictions. Nevertheless, dissemination and implementation of research in coalition activities has been challenging for many programs. Lessons learned from programs and coalitions in the implementation and evaluation of CCC activities, as well as resources provided by national partners, can assist coalitions with the translation of research into practice.

Developing partnerships to reduce disparities in cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Interventions in scientific settings to improve the well-being of women who are not regularly screened for cancer have failed. Consequently, community-based prevention and control efforts are needed. COMMUNITY CONTEXT: From 2003 through 2007, three federal agencies and 1 nongovernmental agency collaborated with county-level public health counterparts from 6 states to address screening disparities in cervical and breast cancer in counties with the highest prevalence. This case study describes lessons learned from Team Up, a model pilot program. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive qualitative case study including 5 Southern states and 1 Midwestern state: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The 6 states underwent a 5-step process to adopt, adapt, and implement 1 of 3 evidence-based interventions designed for cervical and breast cancer screening. OUTCOME: The 6 participating states had various levels of success. Participating states formed and sustained viable interorganizational public health partnerships throughout the pilot program and beyond. INTERPRETATION: Although this innovative pilot faced many difficulties, participants overcame substantial obstacles and produced many key accomplishments. Team Up brought together 2 challenging public health strategies: the translation of evidence-based approaches to communities and populations, and partnerships among diverse people and organizations. Case study results suggest that using a mix of approaches can promote the transference of evidence from research into practice through local, regional, and national partnerships.