Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

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.

Evaluation of the Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. Web Portal.

CONTEXT: The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T.) Web portal was designed to ease access to data and evidence-based resources for cancer control practitioners and researchers focused on developing, implementing, and evaluating cancer control programs. OBJECTIVES: To determine usability, applicability, and opportunities to improve the P.L.A.N.E.T. Web portal after significant changes to the portal over time. DESIGN: The National Cancer Institute surveyed and interviewed cancer control professionals to assess factors influencing utilization of P.L.A.N.E.T. Data were collected from May 2017 to June 2018 via partner agencies, electronic publications, and online links. OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics with χ test were used to analyze the quantitative data and examine the relationship among variables. Qualitative interviews further informed the quantitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 724 participants surveyed, 51% were users of P.L.A.N.E.T., with the majority accessing P.L.A.N.E.T. within the last 6 months. Most users felt that P.L.A.N.E.T. effectively met their needs for accessing specific cancer data, identifying evidenced-based programs, and ascertaining details on various cancer topics. There were statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between users and nonusers of P.L.A.N.E.T., where users were more likely to have more experience in the cancer field, were older in age, and located in southern states. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that P.L.A.N.E.T. is seen as a viable and credible source for cancer control program planning and delivery. A reassessment of P.L.A.N.E.T.'s goals is warranted, which may support reaching out to new audiences, amplifying or removing underutilized resources, and adding additional resources and topics. Consideration for training and tutorials on P.L.A.N.E.T. would benefit partner agencies and build capacity for evidence-based program development.

The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control.

BACKGROUND: Mentored training approaches help build capacity for research through mentoring networks and skill building activities. Capacity for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in cancer is needed and mentored training programs have been developed. Evaluation of mentored training programs through quantitative approaches often provides us with information on "what" improved for participants. Qualitative approaches provide a deeper understanding of "how" programs work best. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 fellows of the National Cancer Institute-funded Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation in Cancer to gain understanding of their experiences with mentoring received during the program. Fellows were selected from all 55 trained participants based upon their gain in D&I research skills (highest and lowest) and number of collaborative connections in the program network (highest and lowest) reported in previous quantitative surveys. Phone interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis. Codes were developed a priori to reflect interview guide concepts followed by further development and iterative coding of three common themes that emerged: 1) program and mentoring structure, 2) importance of mentor attributes, and 3) enhanced capacity: credentials, confidence, credibility and connections. RESULTS: Interviews provided valuable information about program components that worked best and impacts attributed to participation in the program. Fellows reported that regular monthly check-in calls with mentors helped to keep their research moving forward and that group mentoring structures aided in their learning of basic D&I research concepts and their application. Accessible, responsive, and knowledgeable mentors were commonly mentioned by fellows as a key to their success in the program. Fellows mentioned various forms of impact that they attributed to their participation in the program including gaining credibility in the field, a network of peers and experts, and career developments (e.g., collaborative publications and grant funding). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mentored training works best when mentoring is structured and coupled with applied learning and when respected and dedicated mentors are on board. Increased scientific collaborations and credibility within a recognized network are important trainee experiences that should be considered when designing, implementing, and sustaining mentored training programs.

The current state of funded NIH grants in implementation science in genomic medicine: a portfolio analysis.

PURPOSE: Implementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps. METHODS: We identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code. RESULTS: Forty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION: We identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.

Correction: A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002631.].

A collaborative translational research framework for evaluating and implementing the appropriate use of human genome sequencing to improve health.

In a Policy Forum, Muin Khoury and colleagues discuss research on the clinical application of genome sequencing data.

Opportunities for Epidemiologists in Implementation Science: A Primer.

The field of epidemiology has been defined as the study of the spread and control of disease. However, epidemiology frequently focuses on studies of etiology and distribution of disease at the cost of understanding the best ways to control disease. Moreover, only a small fraction of scientific discoveries are translated into public health practice, and the process from discovery to translation is exceedingly slow. Given the importance of translational science, the future of epidemiologic training should include competency in implementation science, whose goal is to rapidly move evidence into practice. Our purpose in this paper is to provide epidemiologists with a primer in implementation science, which includes dissemination research and implementation research as defined by the National Institutes of Health. We describe the basic principles of implementation science, highlight key components for conducting research, provide examples of implementation studies that encompass epidemiology, and offer resources and opportunities for continued learning. There is a clear need for greater speed, relevance, and application of evidence into practice, programs, and policies and an opportunity to enable epidemiologists to conduct research that not only will inform practitioners and policy-makers of risk but also will enhance the likelihood that evidence will be implemented.

Commentary: Increasing the Connectivity Between Implementation Science and Public Health: Advancing Methodology, Evidence Integration, and Sustainability.

Gaps remain between the outcomes of biomedical research and their application within clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science, also referred to as dissemination and implementation research, is intended to improve the adoption, uptake, and sustainability of evidence-based health interventions. The articles in this volume's symposium on implementation science and public health identify important directions in the effort to maximize the impact of research on public and population health. Leading researchers present reviews of the use of quasi-experimental designs in implementation science, the movement toward enhancing evidence-based public health, and intervention sustainability. Each article presents lessons learned from prior research and recommendations for the next generation of studies. Collectively, the symposium offers a road map for future implementation science that seeks to optimize public health.

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.

Proposed outcomes measures for state public health genomic programs.

PURPOSE: To assess the implementation of evidence-based genomic medicine and its population-level impact on health outcomes and to promote public health genetics interventions, in 2015 the Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed an action collaborative, the Genomics and Public Health Action Collaborative (GPHAC). This group engaged key stakeholders from public/population health agencies, along with experts in the fields of health disparities, health literacy, implementation science, medical genetics, and patient advocacy. METHODS: In this paper, we present the efforts to identify performance objectives and outcome metrics. Specific attention is placed on measures related to hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome and Lynch syndrome (LS), two conditions with existing evidence-based genomic applications that can have immediate impact on morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Our assessment revealed few existing outcome measures. Therefore, using an implementation research framework, 38 outcome measures were crafted. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based public health requires outcome metrics, yet few exist for genomics. Therefore, we have proposed performance objectives that states might use and provided examples of a few state-level activities already under way, which are designed to collect outcome measures for HBOC and LS.

An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation.

The wide variety of dissemination and implementation designs now being used to evaluate and improve health systems and outcomes warrants review of the scope, features, and limitations of these designs. This article is one product of a design workgroup that was formed in 2013 by the National Institutes of Health to address dissemination and implementation research, and whose members represented diverse methodologic backgrounds, content focus areas, and health sectors. These experts integrated their collective knowledge on dissemination and implementation designs with searches of published evaluations strategies. This article emphasizes randomized and nonrandomized designs for the traditional translational research continuum or pipeline, which builds on existing efficacy and effectiveness trials to examine how one or more evidence-based clinical/prevention interventions are adopted, scaled up, and sustained in community or service delivery systems. We also mention other designs, including hybrid designs that combine effectiveness and implementation research, quality improvement designs for local knowledge, and designs that use simulation modeling.

The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify trends and gaps in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base to examine the current literature in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. We selected original research articles based on specific inclusion criteria and then abstracted information about study design, genomic medicine, and implementation outcomes. Data were aggregated, and trends and gaps in the literature were discussed. RESULTS: Our final review encompassed 283 articles published in 2014, the majority of which described uptake (35.7%, n = 101) and preferences (36.4%, n = 103) regarding genomic technologies, particularly oncology (35%, n = 99). Key study design elements, such as racial/ethnic composition of study populations, were underreported in studies. Few studies incorporated implementation science theoretical frameworks, sustainability measures, or capacity building. CONCLUSION: Although genomic discovery provides the potential for population health benefit, the current knowledge base around implementation to turn this promise into a reality is severely limited. Current gaps in the literature demonstrate a need to apply implementation science principles to genomic medicine in order to deliver on the promise of precision medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 12 January 2017.

Sharing State Mental Health Data for Research: Building Toward Ongoing Learning in Mental Health Care Systems.

With the rise of "big data," the opportunities to use administrative and clinical data to evaluate impact of state level program initiatives are greatly expanded. The National Institute of Mental Health has in recent years supported research studies pooling data across states to address state-relevant questions. This commentary summarizes these activities and describes future platforms that may enhance ongoing work in this area.

Using the principles of complex systems thinking and implementation science to enhance maternal and child health program planning and delivery.

Traditionally, epidemiologic methodologies have focused on measurement of exposures, outcomes, and program impact through reductionistic, yet complex statistical modeling. Although not new to the field of epidemiology, two frameworks that provide epidemiologists with a foundation for understanding the complex contexts in which programs and policies are implemented were presented to maternal and child health (MCH) professionals at the 2012 co-hosted 18th Annual MCH Epidemiology Conference and 22nd CityMatCH Urban Leadership Conference. The complex systems approach offers researchers in MCH the opportunity to understand the functioning of social, medical, environmental, and behavioral factors within the context of implemented public health programs. Implementation science provides researchers with a framework to translate the evidence-based program interventions into practices and policies that impact health outcomes. Both approaches offer MCH epidemiologists conceptual frameworks with which to re-envision how programs are implemented, monitored, evaluated, and reported to the larger public health audience. By using these approaches, researchers can begin to understand and measure the broader public health context, account for the dynamic interplay of the social environment, and ultimately, develop more effective MCH programs and policies.

Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The field of implementation science has significantly expanded in size and scope over the past two decades, although work related to understanding implementation processes have of course long preceded the more systematic efforts to improve integration of evidence-based interventions into practice settings. While this growth has had significant benefits to research, practice, and policy, there are some clear challenges that this period of adolescence has uncovered. MAIN BODY: This invited commentary reflects on the development of implementation science, its rapid growth, and milestones in its establishment as a viable component of the biomedical research enterprise. The authors reflect on progress in research and training, and then unpack some of the consequences of rapid growth, as the field has grappled with the competing challenges of legitimacy among the research community set against the necessary integration and engagement with practice and policy partners. The article then enumerates a set of principles for the field's next developmental stage and espouses the aspirational goal of a "big tent" to support the next generation of impactful science. CONCLUSION: For implementation science to expand its relevance and impact to practice and policy, researchers must not lose sight of the original purpose of the field-to support improvements in health and health care at scale, the importance of building a community of research and practice among key partners, and the balance of rigor, relevance, and societal benefit.

Advancing adaptation of evidence-based interventions through implementation science: progress and opportunities.

While the recognition of the need to adapt interventions to improve their fit with populations and service systems has been well established within the scientific community, limited consideration of the role of adaptation within implementation science has impeded progress toward optimal uptake of evidence-based care. This article reflects on the traditional paths through which adapted interventions were studies, progress made in recent years toward better integration of the science of adaptation within implementation studies with reference to a special publication series, and next steps for the field to continue to build a robust knowledge base on adaptation.

Advancing the science of integrating multiple interventions by blending and bundling.

Cancer prevention and control research has produced a variety of effective interventions over the years, though most are single disease focused. To meet the Cancer Moonshot goal to reduce the cancer death rate by 50% by 2047, it may be necessary to overcome the limitations of siloed interventions that do not meet people's multiple needs and limitations in system capacity to deliver the increasing number of interventions in parallel. In this article, we propose integrating multiple evidence-based interventions as a potential solution. We define 2 types of integrated interventions, blended and bundled, and provide examples to illustrate each. We then offer a schematic and outline considerations for how to assemble blended or bundled interventions including looking at the intervention need or opportunity along the cancer continuum as well as co-occurring behaviors or motivations. We also discuss delivery workflow integration considerations including social-ecological level(s), context or setting, implementer, and intended beneficiary. Finally, in assembling integrated interventions, we encourage consideration of practice-based expertise and community and/or patient input. After assembly, we share thoughts related to implementation and evaluation of blended or bundled interventions. To conclude the article, we present multiple research opportunities in this space. With swift progress on these research directions, cancer prevention and control interventionists and implementation scientists can contribute to achieving the promise of the reignited Cancer Moonshot.