Dissemination and implementation science training needs: Insights from practitioners and researchers

INTRODUCTION: Dissemination and implementation research training has great potential to improve the impact and reach of health-related research; however, research training needs from the end user perspective are unknown. This paper identifies and prioritizes dissemination and implementation research training needs. METHODS: A diverse sample of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers was invited to participate in Concept Mapping in 2014–2015. Phase 1 (Brainstorming) gathered participants' responses to the prompt: To improve the impact of research evidence in practice and policy settings, a skill in which researchers need more training is… The resulting statement list was edited and included subsequent phases. Phase 2 (Sorting) asked participants to sort each statement into conceptual piles. In Phase 3 (Rating), participants rated the difficulty and importance of incorporating each statement into a training curriculum. A multidisciplinary team synthesized and interpreted the results in 2015–2016. RESULTS: During Brainstorming, 60 researchers and 60 practitioners/policymakers contributed 274 unique statements. Twenty-nine researchers and 16 practitioners completed sorting and rating. Nine concept clusters were identified: Communicating Research Findings, Improve Practice Partnerships, Make Research More Relevant, Strengthen Communication Skills, Develop Research Methods and Measures, Consider and Enhance Fit, Build Capacity for Research, and Understand Multilevel Context. Though researchers and practitioners had high agreement about importance (r =0.93) and difficulty (r =0.80), ratings differed for several clusters (e.g., Build Capacity for Research). CONCLUSIONS: Including researcher and practitioner perspectives in competency development for dissemination and implementation research identifies skills and capacities needed to conduct and communicate contextualized, meaningful, and relevant research

Training scholars in dissemination and implementation research for cancer prevention and control: A mentored approach

Abstract Background As the field of D&I (dissemination and implementation) science grows to meet the need for more effective and timely applications of research findings in routine practice, the demand for formalized training programs has increased concurrently. The Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) Program aims to build capacity in the cancer control D&I research workforce, especially among early career researchers. This paper outlines the various components of the program and reports results of systematic evaluations to ascertain its effectiveness. Methods Essential features of the program include selection of early career fellows or more experienced investigators with a focus relevant to cancer control transitioning to a D&I research focus, a 5-day intensive training institute, ongoing peer and senior mentoring, mentored planning and work on a D&I research proposal or project, limited pilot funding, and training and ongoing improvement activities for mentors. The core faculty and staff members of the MT-DIRC program gathered baseline and ongoing evaluation data regarding D&I skill acquisition and mentoring competency through participant surveys and analyzed it by iterative collective reflection. Results A majority (79%) of fellows are female, assistant professors (55%); 59% are in allied health disciplines, and 48% focus on cancer prevention research. Forty-three D&I research competencies were assessed; all improved from baseline to 6 and 18 months. These effects were apparent across beginner, intermediate, and advanced initial D&I competency levels and across the competency domains. Mentoring competency was rated very highly by the fellows––higher than rated by the mentors themselves. The importance of different mentoring activities, as rated by the fellows, was generally congruent with their satisfaction with the activities, with the exception of relatively greater satisfaction with the degree of emotional support and relatively lower satisfaction for skill building and opportunity initially. Conclusions These first years of MT-DIRC demonstrated the program’s ability to attract, engage, and improve fellows’ competencies and skills and implement a multicomponent mentoring program that was well received. This account of the program can serve as a basis for potential replication and evolution of this model in training future D&I science researchers

Health care system collaboration to address chronic diseases: A nationwide snapshot from state public health practitioners

INTRODUCTION: Until recently, health care systems in the United States often lacked a unified approach to prevent and manage chronic disease. Recent efforts have been made to close this gap through various calls for increased collaboration between public health and health care systems to better coordinate provision of services and programs. Currently, the extent to which the public health workforce has responded is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to explore health care system collaboration efforts and activities among a population-based sample of state public health practitioners. METHODS: During spring 2013, a national survey was administered to state-level chronic disease public health practitioners. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they collaborate with health care systems. Those who reported “yes” were asked to indicate all topic areas in which they collaborate and provide qualitative examples of their collaborative work. RESULTS: A total of 759 respondents (84%) reported collaboration. Common topics of collaboration activities were tobacco, cardiovascular health, and cancer screening. More client-oriented interventions than system-wide interventions were found in the qualitative examples provided. Respondents who collaborated were also more likely to use the Community Guide, use evidence-based decision making, and work in program areas that involved secondary, rather than primary, prevention. CONCLUSION: The study findings indicate a need for greater guidance on collaboration efforts that involve system-wide and cross-system interventions. Tools such as the Community Guide and evidence-based training courses may be useful in providing such guidance

Doing what we know, knowing what to do: Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)

Given the lack of progress in breast cancer prevention, the California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) plans to apply current scientific knowledge about breast cancer to primary prevention at the population level. This paper describes the first phase of Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC). The foci of Phase 1 are building coalitions and coalition capacity building through community engagement in community-based participatory research (CBPR) and dissemination and implementation (D&I) research training. Based on the successful implementation and evaluation of Phase 1, the foci of Phase 2 (presented separately in this special issue) will be to translate the California Breast Cancer Prevention Plan overarching goal and specific intervention goals for 23 breast cancer risk and protective factors strategies into evidence-informed interventions (EIIs) that are disseminated and implemented across California. CLASP-BC is designed to identify, disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based prevention approaches by funding large scale EIIs, through multi-jurisdictional actions, with the intent to decrease the risk of breast cancer and other chronic diseases (sharing common risk factors), particularly among racial/ethnic minorities and medically underserved populations in California

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC)-Phase 2

Californians Linking Action with Science for Prevention of Breast Cancer (CLASP-BC) is part of California Breast Cancer Research Program\u27s (CBCRP) Initiative strategic priority to disseminate and implement high-impact, population-based primary prevention interventions. CLASP-BC is informed by six years of funded program dissemination and implementation (D&I) research and evaluation conducted by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (CPAC) through its Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP). In its second phase, CLASP-BC will fund multi-sector, multi-jurisdictional initiatives that integrate the lessons learned from science with the lessons learned from practice and policy to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer and develop viable and sustainable infrastructure models for primary prevention breast cancer programs and research evidence implementation. Applications will be solicited from research, practice, policy, and community teams to address one or more of the intervention goals for the 23 risk factors identified in Paths to Prevention: The California Breast Cancer Primary Prevention Plan (P2P), expanding upon existing primary prevention efforts into two or more California jurisdictions, focused on disadvantaged, high risk communities with unmet social needs. The lessons learned from CLASP-BC will be widely disseminated within the participating jurisdictions, across California and, where applicable, to jurisdictions outside the state

Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: A quasi-experimental evaluation

BACKGROUND: There is a continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand the capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants. METHODS: Post-doctoral and early-career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N = 102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of (1) a D&I publication and (2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N = 55) and nonfellows (N = 47). Additional models were constructed to include independent variables that attenuated the program\u27s association by 5% or more. Only US-based applicants (N = 87) were included in the grant funding analysis. RESULTS: Fellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI 0.98-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I-focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.2-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: We document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other forms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the USA and internationally should consider common evaluation measures

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network is a national network recently established to focus on developing new interventions and disseminating and translating proven interventions into practice to reduce cancer burden and disparities, especially among minority and medically underserved populations. Jointly funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute, the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network consists of sites administered through Prevention Research Centers funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The five sites are located in Kentucky, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Texas, Washington State, and West Virginia. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's intervention areas include primary prevention of cancer through healthy eating, physical activity, sun avoidance, tobacco control, and early detection of cancer through screening. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network uses the methods of community-based participatory research and seeks to build on the cancer-relevant systematic reviews of the Guide to Community Preventive Services. Initial foci for the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network's research work groups include projects to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers; to promote informed decision making for prostate cancer screening; and to validate educational materials developed for low-literacy populations

Promoting state health department evidence-based cancer and chronic disease prevention: A multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component

BACKGROUND: Cancer and other chronic diseases reduce quality and length of life and productivity, and represent a significant financial burden to society. Evidence-based public health approaches to prevent cancer and other chronic diseases have been identified in recent decades and have the potential for high impact. Yet, barriers to implement prevention approaches persist as a result of multiple factors including lack of organizational support, limited resources, competing emerging priorities and crises, and limited skill among the public health workforce. The purpose of this study is to learn how best to promote the adoption of evidence based public health practice related to chronic disease prevention. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the methods for a multi-phase dissemination study with a cluster randomized trial component that will evaluate the dissemination of public health knowledge about evidence-based prevention of cancer and other chronic diseases. Phase one involves development of measures of practitioner views on and organizational supports for evidence-based public health and data collection using a national online survey involving state health department chronic disease practitioners. In phase two, a cluster randomized trial design will be conducted to test receptivity and usefulness of dissemination strategies directed toward state health department chronic disease practitioners to enhance capacity and organizational support for evidence-based chronic disease prevention. Twelve state health department chronic disease units will be randomly selected and assigned to intervention or control. State health department staff and the university-based study team will jointly identify, refine, and select dissemination strategies within intervention units. Intervention (dissemination) strategies may include multi-day in-person training workshops, electronic information exchange modalities, and remote technical assistance. Evaluation methods include pre-post surveys, structured qualitative phone interviews, and abstraction of state-level chronic disease prevention program plans and progress reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01978054