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
COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted underserved populations, including racial/ethnic minorities. Prior studies have demonstrated that mobile health units are effective at expanding preventive services for hard-to-reach populations, but this has not been studied in the context of COVID-19 vaccination. Our objective was to determine if voluntary participants who access mobile COVID-19 vaccination units are more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities and adolescents compared with the general vaccinated population. We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals who presented to three different mobile COVID-19 vaccination units in the Greater Boston area from May 20, 2021, to August 18, 2021. We acquired data regarding the general vaccinated population in the state and of target communities from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. We used chi-square testing to compare the demographic characteristics of mobile vaccination unit participants and the general state and community populations that received COVID-19 vaccines during the same time period. We found that during this three-month period, mobile vaccination units held 130 sessions and administered 2622 COVID-19 vaccine doses to 1982 unique participants. The median (IQR) age of participants was 31 (16-46) years, 1016 (51%) were female, 1575 (80%) were non-White, and 1126 (57%) were Hispanic. Participants in the mobile vaccination units were more likely to be younger (p < 0.001), non-White race (p < 0.001), and Hispanic ethnicity (p < 0.001) compared with the general vaccinated population of the state and target communities. This study suggests that mobile vaccination units have the potential to improve access to COVID-19 vaccination for diverse populations.
Citation: Gupta PS, Mohareb AM, Valdes C, et al. Expanding COVID-19 vaccine access to underserved populations through implementation of mobile vaccination units. Prev Med. 2022;163:107226. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107226
Over the past 20 years, the National Institutes for Health (NIH) has implemented several policies designed to improve sharing of research data, such as the NIH public access policy for publications, NIH genomic data sharing policy, and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot public access and data sharing policy. In January 2023, a new NIH data sharing policy has gone into effect, requiring researchers to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan in proposals for NIH funding (NIH. Supplemental information to the, 2020b; NIH. Final policy for data, 2020a). These policies are based on the idea that sharing data is a key component of the scientific method, as it enables the creation of larger data repositories that can lead to research questions that may not be possible in individual studies (Alter and Gonzalez, 2018; Jwa and Poldrack, 2022), allows enhanced collaboration, and maximizes the federal investment in research. Important questions that we must consider as data sharing is expanded are to whom do benefits of data sharing accrue and to whom do benefits not accrue? In an era of growing efforts to engage diverse communities in research, we must consider the impact of data sharing for all research participants and the communities that they represent.
We examine the issue of data sharing through a community-engaged research lens, informed by a long-standing partnership between community-engaged researchers and a key community health organization (Kruse et al., 2022). We contend that without effective community engagement and rich contextual knowledge, biases resulting from data sharing can remain unchecked. We provide several recommendations that would allow better community engagement related to data sharing to ensure both community and researcher understanding of the issues involved and move toward shared benefits. By identifying good models for evaluating the impact of data sharing on communities that contribute data, and then using those models systematically, we will advance the consideration of the community perspective and increase the likelihood of benefits for all.
Citation: Emmons KM, Mendez S, Lee RM, Erani D, Mascioli L, Abreu M, Adams S, Daly J, Bierer BE. Data sharing in the context of community-engaged research partnerships. Social Science & Medicine. 2023;325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115895
View research abstract here.
Background: Logic models map the short-term and long-term outcomes that are expected to occur with a program, and thus are an essential tool for evaluation. Funding agencies, especially in the United States (US), have encouraged the use of logic models among their grantees. They also use logic models to clarify expectations for their own funding initiatives. It is increasingly recognized that logic models should be developed through a participatory approach which allows input from those who carry out the program being evaluated. While there are many positive examples of participatory logic modeling, funders have generally not engaged grantees in developing the logic model associated with their own initiatives. This article describes an instance where a US funder of a multi-site initiative fully engaged the funded organizations in developing the initiative logic model. The focus of the case study is Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), a multi-year initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute.
Methods: The reflective case study was collectively constructed by representatives of the seven centers funded under ISC3. Members of the Cross-Center Evaluation (CCE) Work Group jointly articulated the process through which the logic model was developed and refined. Individual Work Group members contributed descriptions of how their respective centers reviewed and used the logic model. Cross-cutting themes and lessons emerged through CCE Work Group meetings and the writing process.
Conclusions: The ISC3 case study demonstrates how participatory logic modeling can be mutually beneficial to funders, grantees and evaluators of multi-site initiatives. Funded groups have important insights about what is feasible and what will be required to achieve the initiative’s stated objectives. They can also help identify the contextual factors that either inhibit or facilitate success, which can then be incorporated into both the logic model and the evaluation design. In addition, when grantees co-develop the logic model, they have a better understanding and appreciation of the funder’s expectations and thus are better positioned to meet those expectations.
Citation: Easterling D, Jacob RR, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Gundersen DA, Angier H, DeVoe JE, Likumahuwa-Ackman S, Vu T, Glasgow RE, Schnoll R. Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science. Implementation Science Communications. 2023;4(1). doi:10.1186/s43058-023-00468-6
Implementation science offers a rigorous set of tools to help mitigate long-standing and worsening gender disparities in academia.
We are women scientists who have worked in university settings for most of our careers. National data suggesting persistent gender inequities are corroborated by our daily lived experiences. Women are overrepresented in nontenure track roles, are underrepresented among full professors and senior leadership, and receive lower pay across all ranks compared to men counterparts (1). These data tell an even more dire story for women from racial and/or ethnic minority groups. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has made everything worse, and many women are leaving the academy. Universities and funders must take action now.
What is the best path forward? We recommend using implementation science to deploy and evaluate interventions that work. This approach focuses on the scientific study of methods and strategies to implement interventions that work in real-world settings (2). Practically speaking, this means that universities must prioritize scientifically backed approaches to support women faculty, including individual-level approaches such as leadership training. They should also develop and evaluate new structural approaches, such as hiring strategies and policies, to make universities more inclusive, diverse, and equitable places for all faculty.
Citation: Beidas RS, Hannon PA, Emmons KM. Advancing gender equity in the academy. Science Advances. 2022; 8:13. Published 2022 Mar 30. doi:10.1126/sciadv.abq0430