Background: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research is a key factor in the uptake and use of evidence-based cancer control interventions. National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated cancer centers are ideal settings in which to further D&I knowledge. The purpose of this study was to summarize the characteristics of NCI-funded D&I science grants in the nation’s cancer centers to understand the nature, extent, and opportunity for this key type of translational work.
Methods: We used the National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool to identify active NCI-funded grants in D&I science at NCI clinical cancer centers (n = 13) and comprehensive cancer centers (n = 51) as well as their academic affiliates. Active projects were eligible for inclusion if they 1) were awarded directly to an NCI cancer center or an academic or research affiliate, and 2) identified D&I content in the abstract. Portfolio data were collected in February 2021.
Results: We identified 104 active NCI-funded D&I research or training grants across the 64 cancer centers; 57.8% of cancer centers had at least 1 NCI-funded D&I grant. Most awards (71.1%) were for research grants. Training grants constituted 29.1% of D&I-focused grants. Overall, 50.0% of grants (n = 52) concentrated on specific cancers. Almost two-thirds of grants (n = 68, 65.4%) had a stated health equity focus.
Conclusions: More than one-half of NCI-designated cancer centers have active funding in D&I science, reflecting a substantial investment by NCI. There remains considerable room for further development, which would further support NCI’s translational mission.
Citation: Mueller NM, Hsieh A, Ramanadhan S, Lee RM, Emmons KM. The prevalence of dissemination and implementation research and training grants at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers. JNCI Cancer Spectru. 2022; 6:1. Published 2021 Dec 15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncics/pkab092
Background: More than half of cancers could be prevented by employing evidence-based interventions (EBIs), including prevention interventions targeting nutrition, physical activity, and tobacco. Federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) are the primary source of patient care for over 30 million Americans — making them an optimal setting for ensuring evidence-based prevention that advances health equity. The aims of this study are to (1) determine the degree to which primary cancer prevention EBIs are being implemented within Massachusetts FQHCs and (2) describe how these EBIs are implemented internally and via community partnerships.
Methods: We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design to assess the implementation of cancer prevention EBIs. First, we collected 34 quantitative surveys from staff at 16 FQHCs across Massachusetts to determine the frequency of EBI implementation. We followed up with 12 qualitative one-on-one interviews among a sample of staff to understand how the EBIs selected on the survey were implemented. Exploration of contextual influences on implementation and use of partnerships was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Quantitative data were summarized descriptively, and qualitative analyses used reflexive, thematic approaches, beginning deductively with codes from CFIR, then inductively coding additional categories.
Results: All FQHCs indicated they offered clinic-based tobacco interventions, such as clinician-delivered screening practices and prescription of tobacco cessation medications. Quitline interventions and some diet/physical activity EBIs were available at all FQHCs, but staff perceptions of penetration were low. Only 38% of FQHCs offered group tobacco cessation counseling and 63% referred patients to mobile phone-based cessation interventions. We found multilevel factors influenced implementation across intervention types — including the complexity of intervention trainings, available time and staffing, motivation of clinicians, funding, and external policies and incentives. While partnerships were described as valuable, only one FQHC reported using clinical-community linkages for primary cancer prevention EBIs.
Conclusions: Adoption of primary prevention EBIs in Massachusetts FQHCs is relatively high, but stable staffing and funding are required to successfully reach all eligible patients. FQHC staff are enthusiastic about the potential of community partnerships to foster improved implementation—providing training and support to build these relationships will be key to fulfilling that promise.
Citation: Lee RM, Daly JG, Mallick K, Ramanadhan S, Torres CH, Hayes CR, Manuel A, Nalls R, Emmons KM. Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer prevention interventions in MA community health centers: an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. Implementation Science Communications. 2023;4(1). doi:10.1186/s43058-023-00483-7
Introduction: Access to COVID-19 testing has been inequitable and misaligned with community need. However, community health centers have played a critical role in addressing the COVID-19 testing needs of historically disadvantaged communities. The aim of this paper is to explore the perceptions of COVID-19 testing barriers in six Massachusetts communities that are predominantly low income and describe how these findings were used to build tailored clinical-community strategies to addressing testing inequities.
Methods: Between November 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 84 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 107 community health center staff, community partners, and residents. Resident interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. We used a 2-phase framework analysis to analyze the data, including deductive coding to facilitate rapid analysis for action and an in-depth thematic analysis applying the Social Ecological Model.
Results: Through the rapid needs assessment, we developed cross-site suggestions to improve testing implementation and communications, as well as community-specific recommendations (e.g., locations for mobile testing sites and local communication channels). Upstream barriers identified in the thematic analysis included accessibility of state-run testing sites, weak social safety nets, and lack of testing supplies and staffing that contributed to long wait times. These factors hindered residents’ abilities to get tested, which was further exacerbated by individual fears surrounding the testing process and limited knowledge on testing availability.
Discussion: Our rapid, qualitative approach created the foundation for implementing strategies that reached underserved populations at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in winter 2021. We explored perceptions of testing barriers and created actionable summaries within 1-2 months of data collection. Partnering community health centers in Massachusetts were able to use these data to respond to the local needs of each community. This study underscores the substantial impact of upstream, structural disparities on the individual experience of COVID-19 and demonstrates the utility of shifting from a typical years’ long research translation process to a rapid approach of using data for action.
Citation: Lee RM, Handunge VL, Augenbraun SL, et al. Addressing COVID-19 Testing Inequities Among Underserved Populations in Massachusetts: A Rapid Qualitative Exploration of Health Center Staff, Partner, and Resident Perceptions. Front Public Health. 2022;10:838544. Published 2022 Mar 24. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.838544
View the research summary here.
Background: Community Health Centers (CHCs) are a critical source of care for low-income and non-privately insured populations. During the pandemic, CHCs have leveraged their infrastructure and role as a trusted source of care to engage the communities they serve in COVID-19 testing.
Methods: To directly address the impact that COVID-19 has had on historically marginalized populations in Massachusetts, we designed a study of community-engaged COVID-19 testing expansion: (1) leveraging existing partnerships to accelerate COVID-19 testing and rapidly disseminate effective implementation strategies; (2) incorporating efforts to address key barriers to testing participation in communities at increased risk for COVID-19; (3) further developing partnerships between communities and CHCs to address testing access and disparities; (4) grounding the study in the development of a shared ethical framework for advancing equity in situations of scarcity; and (5) developing mechanisms for communication and science translation to support community outreach. We use a controlled interrupted time series design, comparing number of COVID-19 tests overall and among people identified as members of high-risk groups served by intervention CHCs compared with six matched control CHCs in Massachusetts, followed by a stepped wedge design to pilot test strategies for tailored outreach by CHCs.
Conclusions: Here, we describe a community-partnered strategy to accelerate COVID-19 testing in historically marginalized populations that provides ongoing resources to CHCs for addressing testing needs in their communities. The study aligns with principles of community-engaged research including shared leadership, adequate resources for community partners, and the flexibility to respond to changing needs over time.
Citation: Kruse GR, Pelton-Cairns L, Taveras E, Dargon-Hart S, Gundersen G, Lee RM, Bierer BE, Lawlor E, LaRocque R, Marcus JM, Davies ME, Emmons K, the RADx-MA Research Partnership. Implementing expanded COVID-19 testing in Massachusetts community health centers through community partnerships: Protocol for an interrupted time series and stepped wedge study design. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2022; 118:106783. Published 2022 July. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106783.
Gaps in the implementation of effective interventions impact nearly all cancer prevention and control strategies in the US including Massachusetts. To close these implementation gaps, evidence-based interventions must be rapidly and equitably implemented in settings serving racially, ethnically, socioeconomically, and geographically diverse populations. This paper provides a brief overview of The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity (ISCCCE) and describes how we have operationalized our commitment to a robust community-engaged center that aims to close these gaps. We describe how ISCCCE is organized and how the principles of community-engaged research are embedded across the center. Principles of community engagement have been operationalized across all components of ISCCCE. We have intentionally integrated these principles throughout all structures and processes and have developed evaluation strategies to assess whether the quality of our partnerships reflects the principles. ISCCCE is a comprehensive community-engaged infrastructure for studying efficient, pragmatic, and equity-focused implementation and adaptation strategies for cancer prevention in historically and currently disadvantaged communities with built-in methods to evaluate the quality of community engagement. This engaged research center is designed to maximize the impact and relevance of implementation research on cancer control in community health centers.
Citation: Kruse GR, Lee RM, Aschbrenner KA, Daly JG, Dargon-Hart S, Davies ME, Gundersen DA, Pelton-Cairns L, Winickoff J, Taveras E, Emmons KM, and The ISCCCE Consortium. Embedding community-engaged research principles in implementation science: The implementation science center for cancer control equity. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. 2023;7(1):e82. doi:10.1017/cts.2023.32
View research summary here.
Background: In 2019–2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in ‘real-world’ settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.
Methods: In April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.
Conclusions: The development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.
Citation: Kruse G, Hale E, Bekelman JE, et al. Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control. BMC Health Services Research. 2023;23(1). Published February 21, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09128-w
Background: Bundling is combining individual interventions to meet quality metrics. Bundling offers of cancer screening with screening for social determinants of health (SDOH) may enable health centers to assist patients with social risks and yield efficiencies.
Methods: Outreach to 50–75-year-olds overdue for CRC screening to offer FIT with SDOH screening. The implementation strategy used facilitation and training for data monitoring and reporting.
Key Results: FQHCs tailored implementation processes to their infrastructure, workflows, and staffing and prioritized different groups for outreach. Two FQHCs used population health outreach, and two integrated FIT-SDOH within established programs, such as pre-visit planning. Of 34,588 patients overdue for CRC screening, 54% were female; 20% Black, 11% Latino, 10% Asian, and 47% white; 32% had Medicaid, 16% Medicare, 32% private insurance, and 11% uninsured. Odds of CRC screening completion in implementation “steps” compared to controls were higher overall and among groups prioritized for outreach (overall: adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.41, p = 0.005; prioritized: aOR 2.88, p = 0.002). Odds of SDOH screening did not differ across “steps.”
Citation: Kruse GR, Percac-Lima S, Barber-Dubois M. et al. Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study. J GEN INTERN MED 39, 1188–1195 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-08654-5
View the research summary here.
Background: Improving the delivery, uptake, and implementation of cancer screening to meet evidence-based recommendations is needed to reduce persistent cancer health disparities in the USA. Current national public health targets emphasize the role of social determinants of health (SDOH) on cancer screening. However, there remains a need to explicate these linkages, toward the goal of identifying and implementing effective interventions that target and address SDOH to reduce inequities in cancer screening.
Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of English language peer-reviewed original research articles published between 2010 and 2021 that describe observational (qualitative and quantitative) and intervention studies conducted in the USA. In alignment with Healthy People 2030, we will include studies of breast, cervical, colorectal, and/or lung cancer screening. Guided by multiple SDOH frameworks, we will broadly define SDOH by five domain areas: economic stability, education access and quality, healthcare access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context. Following systematic literature searches in five databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) and piloting of screening procedures, reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts for potential relevance. Reviewer pairs will then screen full text articles for eligibility criteria. We will extract data items from included articles, including study characteristics, cancer screening intervention information, and coding of SDOH constructs. We will assess study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and synthesize our findings using narrative, descriptive statistics, tables, and figures. Our approach will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations.
Discussion: By completing this systematic review, we will summarize recent literature on SDOH and cancer screening, identify research gaps for inclusion of SDOH, and propose future opportunities for advancing equity in cancer screening by integrating SDOH as part of the implementation context to promote uptake, sustainability, and scale-up in the implementation of screening guidelines.
Citation: Korn AR, Walsh-Bailey C, Pilar M, Sandler B, Bhattacharjee P, Moore WT, Brownson RC, Emmons KM, Oh AY. Social determinants of health and cancer screening implementation and outcomes in the USA: a systematic review protocol. Systematic Reviews. 2022; 11:117. Published 2022 Jun 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01995-4
Background: Multi-center research initiatives offer opportunities to develop and strengthen connections among researchers. These initiatives often have goals of increased scientific collaboration which can be examined using social network analysis.
Methods: The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) initiative conducted an online social network survey in its first year of funding (2020) to (1) establish baseline network measures including the extent of cross-center collaboration and (2) assess factors associated with a network member’s access to the network such as one’s implementation science (IS) expertise. Members of the seven funded centers and NCI program staff identified collaborations in planning/conducting research, capacity building, product development, scientific dissemination, and practice/policy dissemination.
Results: Of the 192 invitees, 182 network members completed the survey (95%). The most prevalent roles were faculty (60%) and research staff (24%). Almost one-quarter (23%) of members reported advanced expertise in IS, 42% intermediate, and 35% beginner. Most members were female (69%) and white (79%). One-third (33%) of collaboration ties were among members from different centers. Across all collaboration activities, the network had a density of 14%, suggesting moderate cohesion. Degree centralization (0.33) and betweenness centralization (0.07) measures suggest a fairly dispersed network (no single or few central member(s) holding all connections). The most prevalent and densely connected collaboration was in planning/conducting research (1470 ties; 8% density). Practice/policy dissemination had the fewest collaboration, lowest density (284 ties’ 3% density), and the largest number of non-connected members (n=43). Access to the ISC3 network varied significantly depending on members’ level of IS expertise, role within the network, and racial/ethnic background. Across all collaboration activities, most connected members included those with advanced IS expertise, faculty and NCI staff, and Hispanic or Latino and white members.
Conclusions: Results establish a baseline for assessing the growth of cross-center collaborations, highlighting specific areas in need of particular growth in network collaborations such as increasing engagement of racial and ethnic minorities and trainees or those with less expertise in IS.
Citation: Jacob RR, Korn AR, Huang GC, Easterling D, Gundersen DA, Ramanadhan S, Vu T, Angier H, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Oh AO, Schnoll R. Collaboration networks of the implementation science centers for cancer control: a social network analysis. Implementation Science Communications. 2022; 3:41. Published 2022 Apr 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00290-6
Mobile health units can improve access to preventive health services, especially for medically underserved populations. However, there is little published experience of mobile health units being used to expand access to COVID-19 vaccination. In concert with local public health departments and community members, we implemented a mobile COVID-19 health unit and deployed it to 12 predominantly low-income and racial/ethnic minority communities in Massachusetts. We describe the success and challenges of this innovative program in expanding access to COVID-19 vaccination.As with prior infectious disease outbreaks and public health crises, socially marginalized communities have borne a disproportionate burden of COVID-19. In the state of Massachusetts, Black and Hispanic people have 1.5 to 3 times the risk of COVID-19 infection and higher age-adjusted incidence rates of mortality.1 Communities with higher social vulnerability indices, predominantly composed of Black and Hispanic people, have had access to less COVID-19 testing and fewer vaccination resources than would be expected for their level of COVID-19 risk.2 Novel, community-based efforts are needed in these communities to address the continued high burden of COVID-19 in addition to long-standing disparities in chronic diseases and health care access.
Citation: Gupta PS, Mohareb AM, Valdes C, et al. Mobile health services for COVID-19: counseling, testing, and vaccination for medically underserved populations. American Journal of Public Health. 2022; 112. Published 2022 Oct 12. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307021