Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colorectal cancer control program grantees and nongrantees, 2011-2012.

IntroductionSince 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded nearly $95 million to 29 states and tribes through the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) to fund 2 program components: 1) providing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening to uninsured and underinsured low-income adults and 2) promoting population-wide CRC screening through evidence-based interventions identified in the Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide). CRCCP is a new model for disseminating and promoting use of evidence-based interventions. If the program proves successful, CDC may adopt the model for future cancer control programs. The objective of our study was to compare the colorectal cancer screening practices of recipients of CRCCP funding (grantees) with those of nonrecipients (nongrantees).MethodsWe conducted parallel Web-based surveys in 2012 with CRCCP grantees (N = 29) and nongrantees (N = 24) to assess promotion and provision of CRC screening, including the use of evidence-based interventions.ResultsCRCCP grantees were significantly more likely than nongrantees to use Community Guide-recommended evidence-based interventions (mean, 3.14 interventions vs 1.25 interventions, P < .001) and to use patient navigation services (eg, transportion or language translation services) (72% vs 17%, P < .001) for promoting CRC screening. Both groups were equally likely to use other strategies. CRCCP grantees were significantly more likely to provide CRC screening than were nongrantees (100% versus 50%, P < .001).ConclusionResults suggest that CRCCP funding and support increases use of evidence-based interventions to promote CRC screening, indicating the program's potential to increase population-wide CRC screening rates

Using the Stages of Change Model to Choose an Optimal Health Marketing Target

Background: In the transtheoretical model of behavior change, “stages of change” are defined as Precontemplation (not even thinking about changing), Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance (maintaining the behavior change). Marketing principles suggest that efforts should be targeted at persons most likely to “buy the product.” Objectives: To examine the effect of intervening at different stages in populations of smokers, with various numbers of people in each “stage of change.” One type of intervention would increase by 10% the probability of a person moving to the next higher stage of change, such as from Precontemplation to Contemplation. The second type would decrease by 10% the probability of relapsing to the next lower stage, such as from Maintenance to Action, and also of changing from Never Smoker to Smoker. Nine hypothetical interventions were compared with the status quo, to determine which type of intervention would provide the most improvement in population smoking. Methods: Three datasets were used to estimate the probability of moving among the stages of change for smoking. Those probabilities were used to create multi-state life tables, which yielded estimates of the expected number of years the population would spend in each stage of change starting at age 40. We estimated the effect of each hypothetical intervention, and compared the intervention effects. Several initial conditions, time horizons, and criteria for success were examined. Results: A population of 40-year-olds in Precontemplation had a further life expectancy of 36 years, of which 26 would be spent in the Maintenance stage. In a population of former and current smokers, moving more persons from the Action to the Maintenance stage (a form of relapse prevention) decreased the number of years spent smoking more than the any other intervention. In a population of 40-year-olds that included Never Smokers, primary smoking prevention was the most effective. The results varied somewhat by the choice of criterion, the length of follow-up, the initial stage distribution, the data, and the sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In a population of 40-year-olds, smokers were likely to achieve Maintenance without an intervention. On the population basis, targeting quitters and never-smokers was more effective than targeting current smokers. This finding is supported by some principles of health marketing. Additional research should target younger ages as well as other health behaviors

Development and Pilot Test of the Workplace Readiness Questionnaire, a Theory-Based Instrument to Measure Small Workplaces’ Readiness to Implement Wellness Programs

To develop a theory-based questionnaire to assess readiness for change in small workplaces adopting wellness programs

Capacity building for evidence-based decision making in local health departments: Scaling up an effective training approach

Abstract Background There are few studies describing how to scale up effective capacity-building approaches for public health practitioners. This study tested local-level evidence-based decision making (EBDM) capacity-building efforts in four U.S. states (Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Washington) with a quasi-experimental design. Methods Partners within the four states delivered a previously established Evidence-Based Public Health (EBPH) training curriculum to local health department (LHD) staff. They worked with the research team to modify the curriculum with local data and examples while remaining attentive to course fidelity. Pre- and post-assessments of course participants (n = 82) and an external control group (n = 214) measured importance, availability (i.e., how available a skill is when needed, either within the skillset of the respondent or among others in the agency), and gaps in ten EBDM competencies. Simple and multiple linear regression models assessed the differences between pre- and post-assessment scores. Course participants also assessed the impact of the course on their work. Results Course participants reported greater increases in the availability, and decreases in the gaps, in EBDM competencies at post-test, relative to the control group. In adjusted models, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in ‘action planning,’ ‘evaluation design,’ ‘communicating research to policymakers,’ ‘quantifying issues (using descriptive epidemiology),’ and ‘economic evaluation.’ Nearly 45% of participants indicated that EBDM increased within their agency since the training. Course benefits included becoming better leaders and making scientifically informed decisions. Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential for improving EBDM capacity among LHD practitioners using a train-the-trainer approach involving diverse partners. This approach allowed for local tailoring of strategies and extended the reach of the EBPH course.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109528/1/13012_2014_Article_124.pd

Creating research-ready partnerships: The initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control

BACKGROUND: In 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in \u27real-world\u27 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. RESULTS: Domains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods. 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

Impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network: Accelerating the Translation of Research Into Practice

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a thematic network dedicated to accelerating the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities by advancing dissemination and implementation science. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, CPCRN has operated at two levels: Each participating Network Center conducts research projects with primarily local partners as well as multicenter collaborative research projects with state and national partners. Through multicenter collaboration, thematic networks leverage the expertise, resources, and partnerships of participating centers to conduct research projects collectively that might not be feasible individually. Although multicenter collaboration often is advocated, it is challenging to promote and assess. Using bibliometric network analysis and other graphical methods, this paper describes CPCRN’s multicenter publication progression from 2004 to 2014. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in 2014 identified 249 peer-reviewed CPCRN publications involving two or more centers out of 6,534 total. The research and public health impact of these multicenter collaborative projects initiated by CPCRN during that 10-year period were then examined. CPCRN established numerous workgroups around topics such as: 2-1-1, training and technical assistance, colorectal cancer control, federally qualified health centers, cancer survivorship, and human papillomavirus. The paper discusses the challenges that arise in promoting multicenter collaboration and the strategies that CPCRN uses to address those challenges. The lessons learned should broadly interest those seeking to promote multisite collaboration to address public health problems, such as cancer prevention and control