A study of the regeneration of the cerebellum of Xenopus laevis (Daudin) in the larval stages and after metamorphosis.

S. Filoni,V. Margotta

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Length of therapy in relation to counselor estimates of personal integration and other case variables.

Stanley W. Standal,F. V. D. Veen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/H0043038

1957-02-01

Journal of Consulting Psychology

Abstract:The relationship between case length and the quality or extent of psychotherape utic change in client-center ed therapy is virtually unknown. In a study of 23 client-centered therapy cases, Seeman (18) found a trend in favor of higher success ratings by the therapist for longer cases. The shorter cases spanned the entire range of success ratings from complete failure, 1, to marked success, 9, whereas the success ratings for longer cases clustered about two high points on the scale (points 7 and 8). The variability of ratings was significantly lower for the long case •group. Seeman concluded that further confirmation of these findings could mean that if a client is in therapy for at least twenty interviews, there is a strong assurance of gain from therapy, as judged by the counselor. In an analysis of 78 client-centered cases,
Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

Lailea Noel,Catherine Cubbin,Shetal Vohra-Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020264

2024-01-20

Health Care

Abstract:Enduring community–academic partnerships are essential for expediting the successful dissemination and implementation of promising interventions and programs, particularly for complex public health issues such as cancer prevention and control. The purpose of this case study was to understand the combined voices of a diverse group of stakeholders to outline the essential factors needed to translate research into sustainable cancer care within communities. System dynamics group model building was used to develop system maps of the factors impacting equitable access to cancer care services among three stakeholder groups (Group A: survivors and family members, n = 20; Group B: providers and administrators in community agencies/organizations, n = 40; Group C: administrators from a cancer institute, academic universities, foundations, and healthcare facilities that coordinate care, n = 25) in central Texas, USA. The lead researcher identified factors involved in transitions of care and their linkages with each other. The analysis of this work displays these connections visually. These models represent the ripple effect of factors influencing the transition of care for stakeholders who are invested in cancer care outcomes. All three groups identified medical mistrust, a culturally sensitive and diverse provider workforce, and care coordination as three essential factors (i.e., themes). Group A also identified caregiver navigation. The groups varied in their emphasis on upstream vs. downstream social drivers of health, with Group B emphasizing the former and Group C emphasizing the latter. To achieve cancer care equity, all stakeholder groups agreed on the importance of addressing the impact of social drivers as critical gaps. Eliminating or reducing these impacts allows each stakeholder group to work more efficiently and effectively to improve cancer care for patients.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control

Shoba Ramanadhan,Melinda M. Davis,Rebecca Armstrong,Barbara Baquero,Linda K. Ko,Jennifer C. Leng,Ramzi G. Salloum,Nicole A. Vaughn,Ross C. Brownson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-018-1008-1

2018-02-07

Abstract:It is critical to accelerate the integration of evidence-based programs, practices, and strategies for cancer prevention and control into clinical, community, and public health settings. While it is clear that effective translation of existing knowledge into practice can reduce cancer burden, it is less clear how best to achieve this. This gap is addressed by the rapidly growing field of implementation science. Given that context influences and is influenced by implementation efforts, engaging stakeholders in the co-production of knowledge and solutions offers an opportunity to increase the likelihood that implementation efforts are useful, scalable, and sustainable in real-world settings. We argue that a participatory implementation science approach is critical, as it supports iterative, ongoing engagement between stakeholders and researchers to improve the pathway between research and practice, create system change, and address health disparities and health equity. This article highlights the utility of participatory implementation science for cancer prevention and control research and addresses (a) the spectrum of participatory research approaches that may be of use, (b) benefits of participatory implementation science, and (c) key considerations for researchers embarking on such projects.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research

Stephanie Best,Karin Thursky,Mark Buzza,Marlena Klaic,Sanne Peters,Lisa Guccione,Alison Trainer,Jillian Francis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10801-x

2024-03-15

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:The challenge of implementing evidence into routine clinical practice is well recognised and implementation science offers theories, models and frameworks to promote investigation into delivery of evidence-based care. Embedding implementation researchers into health systems is a novel approach to ensuring research is situated in day-to-day practice dilemmas. To optimise the value of embedded implementation researchers and resources, the aim of this study was to investigate stakeholders' views on opportunities for implementation science research in a cancer setting that holds potential to impact on care. The research objectives were to: 1) Establish stakeholder and theory informed organisation-level implementation science priorities and 2) Identify and prioritise a test case pilot implementation research project.

health care sciences & services
Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Devon K. Check,Leah L. Zullig,Melinda M. Davis,Louise Davies,David Chambers,Linda Fleisher,Samantha J. Kaplan,Enola Proctor,Shoba Ramanadhan,Florian R. Schroeck,Angela M. Stover,Bogda Koczwara

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06138-w

IF: 5.7

2020-08-31

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract:Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors’ descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
Practitioner perspectives on equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control

Ariella R Korn,April Y Oh,Nanmathi Manian,Sophia Tsakraklides,Lori Carter-Edwards

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae048

2024-09-20

Abstract:Longstanding inequities in cancer prevention and control require novel approaches to improve evidence-based intervention implementation. Exploring and elevating the perspectives of cancer prevention and control practitioners working to advance health equity and equitably implement evidence-based interventions is an important yet underutilized step among researchers working in this space. The purpose of this study was to explore practitioners' perspectives of how health equity is defined and integrated into their work, challenges of advancing health equity for implementation in local settings, and associated strategies. We conducted virtual key informant interviews and focus groups with 16 US practitioners (e.g. clinicians, health administrators, public health professionals) in 2021-2022. Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were coded using inductive content analysis and summarized into themes. Four major themes emerged: (i) how health equity is conceptualized as a process and outcome; (ii) need to shift equity mindsets; (iii) importance of community partnerships; (iv) organizational policies and strategies for fostering equity in implementation. Respondents noted the need for research and medical communities to learn about the importance and benefits of allowing communities to shape implementation to advance equity in the delivery of evidence-based interventions and outcomes. Additionally, respondents emphasized that institutional leaders should initiate changes regarding equitable implementation at the organizational- and system-levels. Respondents endorsed the need to address equity issues related to the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs, practices, and policies. Many findings can be applied beyond cancer prevention and control to support equitable implementation and outcomes more generally.
Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers

Renée M Ferrari,Jennifer Leeman,Alison T Brenner,Sara Y Correa,Teri L Malo,Alexis A Moore,Meghan C O'Leary,Connor M Randolph,Shana Ratner,Leah Frerichs,Deeonna Farr,Seth D Crockett,Stephanie B Wheeler,Kristen Hassmiller Lich,Evan Beasley,Michelle Hogsed,Ashley Bland,Claudia Richardson,Mike Newcomer,Daniel S Reuland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00485-5

2023-09-20

Abstract:Background: Adoption of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has lagged in community health center (CHC) populations in the USA. To address this implementation gap, we developed a multilevel intervention to improve screening in CHCs in our region. We used the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework to guide this effort. Here, we describe the use of implementation strategies outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation in both the Exploration and Preparation phases of this project. During these two EPIS phases, we aimed to answer three primary questions: (1) What factors in the inner and outer contexts may support or hinder colorectal cancer screening in North Carolina CHCs?; (2) What evidence-based practices (EBPs) best fit the needs of North Carolina CHCs?; and (3) How can we best integrate the selected EBPs into North Carolina CHC systems? Methods: During the Exploration phase, we conducted local needs assessments, built a coalition, and conducted local consensus discussions. In the Preparation phase, we formed workgroups corresponding to the intervention's core functional components. Workgroups used cyclical small tests of change and process mapping to identify implementation barriers and facilitators and to adapt intervention components to fit inner and outer contexts. Results: Exploration activities yielded a coalition of stakeholders, including two rural CHCs, who identified barriers and facilitators and reached consensus on two EBPs: mailed FIT and navigation to colonoscopy. Stakeholders further agreed that the delivery of those two EBPs should be centralized to an outreach center. During Preparation, workgroups developed and refined protocols for the following centrally-delivered intervention components: a registry to identify and track eligible patients, a centralized system for mailing at-home stool tests, and a process to navigate patients to colonoscopy after an abnormal stool test. Conclusions: This description may be useful both to implementation scientists, who can draw lessons from applied implementation studies such as this to refine their implementation strategy typologies and frameworks, as well as to implementation practitioners seeking exemplars for operationalizing strategies in early phases of implementation in healthcare.
Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

Serena A. Rodriguez,Simon Craddock Lee,Robin T. Higashi,Patricia M. Chen,Rebecca L. Eary,Navid Sadeghi,Noel Santini,Bijal A. Balasubramanian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01326-8

2023-12-06

Implementation Science

Abstract:Under- and uninsured cancer survivors have significant medical, social, and economic complexity. For these survivors, effective care coordination between oncology and primary care teams is critical for high-quality, comprehensive care. While evidence-based interventions exist to improve coordination between healthcare teams, testing implementation of these interventions for cancer survivors seen in real-world safety-net settings has been limited. This study aimed to (1) identify factors influencing implementation of a multicomponent care coordination intervention (nurse coordinator plus patient registry) focused on cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in an integrated safety-net system and (2) identify mechanisms through which the factors impacted implementation outcomes.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
From what works to what matters: Whole person cancer care and the integrative oncology leadership collaborative (IOLC).

Alyssa Claire McManamon,Jenny Leyh,Jennifer Bires,Lisa Capparella,Linda E Carlson,Greg D. Garber,Nathan Handley,Safiya Karim,Young Joo Lee,Ana Maria Lopez,Patrick J. Mansky,Fern Nibauer-Cohen,Randall A. Oyer,Channing Judith Paller,Jody Pritt,Jasmine Souers,Vered Stearns,Barbara Paxson Urban,Raymond Couric Wadlow,Wayne Jonas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13567

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13567 Background: In 2021-2022, a two-year integrative oncology leadership collaborative ( IOLC ) was established with a goal to routinize whole person care. Thirteen cancer organizations met virtually 1-2x/month, including community, federal and academic centers. The IOLC defined whole person cancer care, adapted & tested open-source patient intake/PROs, education, and workflow resources from primary care, anchored in “what matters” for patients in oncology, and implemented practice change in their settings. Methods: Based on concepts and tools used in whole person primary care , and, with iterative discussion, the IOLC defined minimal required elements for whole person cancer care. Patient advocates, oncology social workers, physicians & nurses came together to draw from efforts that alleviate suffering in palliative, integrative, supportive, and other forms of (mostly) unreimbursed care. Six cancer survivor-advocate members vetted patient-facing resources. Subject matter experts reviewed topics important for clinical initiatives (e.g. group visit models , patient education resources ), shared best practices and solidified commitments to provide whole person care. To assess outcomes, a post-participation survey was fielded. Results: Minimal required elements (MREs) of whole person care were defined as: 1) inclusion of patient & caregiver voice in programming/care plans, 2) explicitly anchoring to “what matters” to the patient in shared decision making and goals of care (using PROs), and 3) supporting safe choices in complementary & integrative modalities. Challenges faced across organizations were: 1) leadership involvement, 2) patient understanding/engagement, 3) resource availability (time/financial), and 4) team alignment. Adaptation of primary care tools to oncology was successful; 15 “pocket guides” gained 2049 page views in 20 mos (top 3: cannabis 18%, nutrition 13%, patient advocacy 10%) and the American Cancer Society adopted the IOLC resources for distribution in 2024. Multi-institutional success occurred via publications and projects such as retooled nurse navigation, survivorship & wellness programs . Survey response rate was 54% (7 of 13 clinical sites). 89% increased whole person health services following IOLC participation (44% moderately or significantly). 100% reported use of the resources in patient care (55% often, 45% periodically). Conclusions: A definition of whole person cancer care, derived from broad consensus, identified MREs that allowed startup success across practice settings. An inclusive community of professionals & patients furthered whole person care with national impact, partnerships and culture change based on what matters to patients.

oncology
Engaging national and regional partners to accelerate broad-scale implementation of nurse-developed interventions

Jennifer Leeman,Linda Beeber,Eric Hodges,Shawn Kneipp,Mark Toles,Seon Ae Yeo,Jessica Zègre-Hemsey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2017.08.014

Abstract:Only a small proportion of research-tested interventions translate into broad-scale implementation in real world practice, and when they do, it often takes many years. Partnering with national and regional organizations is one strategies that researchers may apply to speed the translation of interventions into real-world practice. Through these partnerships, researchers can promote and distribute interventions to the audiences they want their interventions to reach. In this paper, we describe five nurse scientists' programs of research and their partnerships with networks of national, regional, and local organizations, including their initial formative work, activities to engage multi-level network partners, and lessons learned about partnership approaches to speeding broad-scale implementation.
Expanding Outcomes in Cancer Screening Safety Net Programs: Promoting Sustainability and Policy Reform

Erica Martinez Zumba,Karriem S. Watson,Paola Torres,Barbara Williams,Nasima Mannan,Lauren Green,Brenda Owens,Nicole Gastala,Rocio Bueno,Brenda Soto,Leslie Carnahan,Yamile Molina,Vida Henderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981241231502

2024-02-14

Health Education & Behavior

Abstract:Health Education &Behavior, Ahead of Print. Community-engaged patient navigation safety net programs are established as an evidence-based approach to address cancer prevention and early detection efforts, but barriers to expand and sustain such programs persist. In addition, few studies describe how these programs impact buy-in among communities and policy change within health care systems and government. We describe how we used the Capacity for Sustainability Framework to guide efforts for program sustainability and community, institutional, and policy level change in a breast cancer screening and patient navigation safety net program. The nine domains of the Capacity for Sustainability Framework were used to develop program logic models, to inform program implementation and quality improvement agendas, and to guide multi-level partner and stakeholder engagement, outreach, and dissemination of outcomes. The program is currently in its seventh year and continues to be annually funded by a city public health department. In 2021, additional 5-year renewable funding from a state public health department was secured. In addition, institutional program support was expanded for patients diagnosed with breast cancer. Program leaders worked with policymakers to draft legislation to support training certification and third-payor reimbursement for patient navigators and community health workers. The program is well-known and trusted among community members, community-based organizations, and providers. Community, organizational, and policy-level outcomes demonstrate that community-engaged patient navigation safety net programs can influence more than individual and interpersonal outcomes and can be sustained over time.

public, environmental & occupational health
Champions to enhance implementation of clinical and community-based interventions in cancer: a scoping review

Joseph Astorino Nicola,M Muska Nataliansyah,Maria A Lopez-Olivo,Adebola Adegboyega,Kelly A Hirko,Lou-Anne R Chichester,Nora L Nock,Pamela Ginex,Shannon M Christy,Paul Levett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00662-0

2024-10-22

Abstract:Background: Champions are integral across research in cancer, yet studies exploring their roles are limited and have produced mixed results. The current review examines and synthesizes descriptions of how champions emerged and the types of activities they most often performed. By examining evidence from across the translational research continuum, this scoping review aims to characterize the role of champions and strategies that facilitate their involvement in the implementation of cancer care interventions in both clinical and community-based settings. Methods: This scoping review was designed and implemented in compliance with PRISMA-ScR. The review focused on peer-reviewed articles in English-language journals. We searched five databases: PubMed (including MEDLINE), Scopus (including EMBASE), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. Articles published from 1971 to 2022 were included. Two members of the team reviewed in duplicate each article and then a single member of the team extracted the data in Covidence, with a second member comparing the extraction to the original article. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted and then synthesized. These data were used to summarize core champion activities and implementation strategies and to characterize barriers and facilitators to using champions in research. Results: A total of 74 articles were included in the review. The qualitative synthesis highlighted facilitators and barriers to the effective use of champions. Facilitators included consideration of an individual's characteristics when identifying champions, time spent planning for the specific responsibilities of champions, working within a supportive environment, and identifying champions embedded in the target setting. Major barriers included constrained time, low self-efficacy among champions, inadequate training, high turnover rates of champions, and a lack of buy-in from organizational leadership toward the intervention. Champions also were mostly assigned their roles, had varied core activities, and used complementary strategies to empower their target populations. Champions' most frequent core activities include facilitation, outreach/promotion, and recruitment of participants into studies. Conclusions: Champions were used in research of many cancer types and often serve similar roles regardless of where they are located within the translational research process. Despite their critical role, evidence is lacking on the impact of champions specifically on outcomes of many of the research studies that include them. Future research is needed to understand the nuances of champion-driven approaches across diverse cancer care settings.
The role of collaborative governance in translating national cancer programs into network-based practices: A longitudinal case study in Canada

Dominique Tremblay,Susan Usher,Karine Bilodeau,Nassera Touati

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196241300109

2024-11-23

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Abstract:Journal of Health Services Research &Policy, Ahead of Print. ObjectivesNetworks (multiple organizations or actors coordinating their activities towards a common goal) have been promoted in the cancer programs of a number of countries. But there is little empirical evidence on whether and how they overcome the siloed functioning endemic in specialized domains. This study examines how collaborative governance takes shape to support integrated network-based practices within a prescribed national cancer program.MethodsA longitudinal qualitative single-case study was conducted of the Quebec cancer network in Canada. Data were collected in 2018-2020 through semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (n = 37) involved in regional and/or national cancer network structures and a review of documents (n = 45) generated at national and regional level. Abductive thematic analysis during and post-field work was based on Emerson's collaborative governance framework. It aimed to identify how collaborative governance mechanisms (principled engagement, shared motivation and capacity for joint action) were activated in the network, and their contribution to translating a national cancer program into network-based practices at the point of care.ResultsPrincipled engagement was driven through interdisciplinary committees at national and regional level, communities of practice and trajectory-development efforts. These mandated structures supported knowledge exchange and contributed to the recognition of interdependencies, distribution of leadership and development of mutual understanding and trust. Shared motivation benefitted from a vision of patient-centred care but was hindered by top-down communication vehicles that did not allow regional priorities to filter upwards to central level. Between care providers in different settings, trust and candidacy were identified as mechanisms important to shared motivation, though network actions did not sufficiently support trust across care settings, or even between members of the same profession. Candidacy issues hindered family physician participation in cancer network structures that mirrored ongoing difficulties to including them in cancer care practice. Institutional arrangements were important drivers of capacity for joint action in the network. Common indicators were recognized as important to generating efforts towards common goals; however, questions around their validity reduced their contribution to capacities for joint action.ConclusionsDespite favorable starting conditions from the national cancer program and its central leadership promoting collaborative governance, tensions that emerge through the pursuit of network integration limit the transition to a more collaborative practice. Taking the time to work out these tensions as integration proceeds in waves appears essential to arrive at a governance model that is appropriate and acceptable for all network members.

health policy & services
"Now is the time for institutions to be investing in growing exercise programs as part of standard of care": a multiple case study examining the implementation of exercise oncology interventions

Louise Czosnek,Nicole M Rankin,Prue Cormie,Andrew Murnane,Jane Turner,Justin Richards,Simon Rosenbaum,Eva M Zopf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-023-07844-x

2023-06-26

Abstract:Background: Implementation science seeks to systematically identify determinants, strategies, and outcomes within a causal pathway to help explain successful implementation. This process is applied to evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to improve their adoption, implementation, and sustainment. However, this method has not been applied to exercise oncology services, meaning we lack knowledge about implementing exercise EBIs in routine practice. This study aimed to develop causal pathways from the determinants, strategies (including mechanism of change), and implementation outcomes to explain exercise EBIs implementation in routine cancer care. Methods: A multiple-case study was conducted across three healthcare sites in Australia. Sites selected had implemented exercise within routine care for people diagnosed with cancer and sustained the delivery of services for at least 12 months. Four data sources informed the study: semi-structured interviews with staff, document reviews, observations, and the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (survey). Framework analysis was applied to understand the findings. The Implementation Research Logic Model was used to identify commonalities in implementation across sites and develop causal pathways. Results: Two hundred and eighteen data points informed our findings. Across sites, 18 determinants and 22 implementation strategies were consistent. Sixteen determinants and 24 implementation strategies differed across sites and results of implementation outcomes varied. We identified 11 common pathways that when combined, help explain implementation processes. The mechanisms of implementation strategies operating within the pathways included (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) secure resources, (4) optimism, and (5) simplified decision-making processes associated with exercise; (6) relationships (social and professional) and support for the workforce; (7) reinforcing positive outcomes; (8) capability to action plan through evaluations and (9) interactive learning; (10) aligned goals between the organisation and the EBI; and (11) consumer-responsiveness. Conclusion: This study developed causal pathways that explain the how and why of successful implementation of exercise EBIs in cancer care. These findings can support future planning and optimisation activities by creating more opportunities for people with cancer to access evidence-based exercise oncology services. Implications for cancer survivors: Understanding how to implement exercise within routine cancer care successfully is important so cancer survivors can experience the benefits of exercise.
Describing a programme of implementation‐effectiveness research on the organization and implementation of frontline nursing care delivery into diverse heath systems

Miriam Bender,Marjory (Micki) Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16395

IF: 3.057

2024-08-19

Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract:Aims The longitudinal programme of research described in this paper seeks to generate knowledge about factors influencing the implementation of a system‐level intervention, the clinical nurse leader care model, involving nurses as leaders at the frontlines of care and the outcomes achievable with successful implementation. The research programme has the following aims, (a) to clarify clinical nurse leader practice, (b) develop and empirically validate a translational model of frontline care delivery that includes clinical nurse leader practice and (c) delineate the patterns of and critical outcomes of successful implementation of the clinical nurse leader care model. Design This programme of research follows a knowledge‐building trajectory involving multiple study designs in both qualitative (grounded theory, case study) and quantitative (descriptive, correlational and quasi‐experimental) traditions. Methods Multiple mixed methods within a system‐based participatory framework were used to conduct this programme of implementation–effectiveness research. Results Findings are demonstrating how the clinical nurse leader care model, as a complex system‐level intervention, can be implemented in diverse healthcare contexts to make a difference to patient care quality and safety. Findings also contribute to implementation science, helping to better understand the dynamic interdependencies between implementation, the interventions implemented and the contexts in which they are implemented. Conclusion Findings translate into sets of evidence‐informed implementation 'recipes' that health systems can match to their specific contexts and needs. This allows health systems to take on strategies that both maximize resource impact within their existing structures and support achieving intended outcomes. Implication This programme of research is producing actionable implementation and outcome evidence about ways to organize nursing knowledge and practice into care models that can be successfully adopted within real‐world healthcare settings to achieve safer and higher quality patient care.

nursing
Partnering to Promote Equality in Cancer Care

Melissa A. Simon,Xinqi Dong,Charles L. Bennett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19371910902975847

2009-01-01

Social Work in Public Health

Abstract:The existence of major health disparities in the U.S. population is widely accepted. Despite the presence of many national initiatives to end cancer health disparities, there are still differentials at almost every step in the process of prevention to detection through treatment and survival (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Minority Health, 2007). Underserved populations distinguished by race, ethnicity, sex, age, socioeconomic status, geographic location, occupation, and education bear a far greater cancer burden than the general population. These barriers are particularly prominent among low-income populations, a large proportion of whom are also racial-ethnic minorities. These disparities in staging, quality of care, and survival represent a complex interaction among social determinants of health, behavioral risk factors, and system access barriers to timely and high-quality medical care. Healthy People 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) and the National Cancer Institute 2015 Challenge Goals (National Cancer Institute, 2002) of eliminating disparities in cancer mortality emphasize accelerating the dissemination and implementation of interventions to address cancer health disparities.
Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer

Evan M Graboyes,Simon C Lee,Stacy Tessler Lindau,Alyce S Adams,Brenda A Adjei,Mary Brown,Gelareh Sadigh,Andrea Incudine,Ruth C Carlos,Scott D Ramsey,Rick Bangs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad269

2024-01-04

Abstract:Abstract Health-related social needs are prevalent among cancer patients; associated with substantial negative health consequences; and drive pervasive inequities in cancer incidence, severity, treatment choices and decisions, and outcomes. To address the lack of clinical trial evidence to guide health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients, the National Cancer Institute Cancer Care Delivery Research Steering Committee convened experts to participate in a clinical trials planning meeting with the goal of designing studies to screen for and address health-related social needs among cancer patients. In this commentary, we discuss the rationale for, and challenges of, designing and testing health-related social needs interventions in alignment with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 5As framework. Evidence for food, housing, utilities, interpersonal safety, and transportation health-related social needs interventions is analyzed. Evidence regarding health-related social needs and delivery of health-related social needs interventions differs in maturity and applicability to cancer context, with transportation problems having the most maturity and interpersonal safety the least. We offer practical recommendations for health-related social needs interventions among cancer patients and the caregivers, families, and friends who support their health-related social needs. Cross-cutting (ie, health-related social needs agnostic) recommendations include leveraging navigation (eg, people, technology) to identify, refer, and deliver health-related social needs interventions; addressing health-related social needs through multilevel interventions; and recognizing that health-related social needs are states, not traits, that fluctuate over time. Health-related social needs–specific interventions are recommended, and pros and cons of addressing more than one health-related social needs concurrently are characterized. Considerations for collaborating with community partners are highlighted. The need for careful planning, strong partners, and funding is stressed. Finally, we outline a future research agenda to address evidence gaps.

oncology
Key Informants’ Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers

Maria C. Mejia,Roger Zoorob,Sandra Gonzalez,Maribel Mosqueda,Robert Levine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-020-01931-x

2021-01-08

Journal of Cancer Education

Abstract:Implementing evidence-based practice (EBP) in a safety net healthcare system is challenging. This study examined factors associated with feasibility and potential facilitators and barriers which might affect the implementation of a new evidence-based comprehensive primary care and community health–based program aiming to promote efficient and equitable delivery of Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation (LCS-TC). Fifty-three key informants were interviewed. Informants discussed their perceptions of adoption of screening and appropriate referral practices across 15 community health centers. They also identified barriers and facilitators to implementing the LCS-TC program. Interview data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Three major themes representing facilitators and barriers were identified: (1) Allocation of resources and services coverage; (2) need for a collaborative process to engage stakeholders and identify champions; and (3) stakeholders need different types of evidence to support implementation. The top three activities identified as essential for success included provision of sufficient resources for radiologic screening (30%); using non-physician staff for screening (30%); and minimizing the time healthcare providers need to contribute (23%). Conversely, the top three barriers were lack of resources for screening and treatment (60%); insufficient time to address complex patient problems (36%); and perceived lack of patient buy-in (30%). Models for EBP implementation provide stepwise guidance; however, particular contextual factors act as facilitators or barriers to the process. Findings inform EBP implementation efforts regarding resources and key barriers to success around organizational-level supports and promotion of suitable EBP programs.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health,education, scientific disciplines
Abstract B078: Implementing a transdisciplinary framework to build capacity for complex collaboration among academic and non-academic partners

Tobi A. Cawthra,Laura Pinsoneault,Alexis Krause,Kristen Gardner-Volle,Kim Kinner,Jenelle Elza,Melinda Stolley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-b078

2023-01-10

Abstract:Complex problems require a deep understanding of the issue and a collaborative approach to find sustainable solutions. Cancer disparities are complex and must be understood from a broad set of perspectives across the academic spectrum and non-academic sources (community members, community-based organizations, and policymakers). The Community and Cancer Science Network (CCSN) is a transdisciplinary network focused on addressing statewide cancer disparities. The CCSN grounds its approach in the principles of deep equity, systems-change, and the integration of biology to policy. It brings together diverse perspectives through a three-phase model: 1) Incubate ideas through co-learning among the team members to build shared vocabulary, knowledge, and integrate perspectives on the issue; 2) Innovate by using learnings to develop, prototype and pilot potential solutions; 3) Implement to further scale and embed solutions. Despite challenges, the commitment to this approach enabled our network to expand and strengthen transdisciplinary capacity in its partnerships. Now in its third year, CCSN encompasses four projects using its transdisciplinary approach: 1) a curriculum for biomedical researchers and community members to address mistrust and misunderstandings of disparities; 2) development of a shared measurement system to improve mammographic quality; 3) design and implementation of community-based action plans to address breast and lung cancer disparities, and 4) formation of a workgroup to explore the potential causes and solutions for prostate cancer disparities in the state. The projects are guided and supported through the framework by a leadership structure. To assess the impact of its approach on community-academic partnerships, CCSN assesses against a rubric developed in 2020 with its advisory team. The rubric measures partner perception of impact, values application, belonging, interconnectedness and shared purpose. CCSN looks at quantitative and qualitative data annually to generate insights on the strength of partnerships and how its leadership can build additional capacities. CCSN is currently finalizing its assessment of its third year of data. Initial findings suggest partnerships with sustained relationships and high levels of trust appear to weather challenges that accompany implementation of complex interventions. Results also indicate that partners are eager to consider implications for their own work and to connect with others doing similar work within CCSN as they experience similar challenges including navigating the pace of change. Incorporating varied perspectives into understanding cancer disparities and then developing and implementing solutions requires a thoughtful, deliberate and flexible approach. Our framework provides rigor without rigidity and allows academics and non-academics to build authentic and collaborative relationships which persist through adversity, facilitate a richer understanding of disparities and open doors for future partnerships. Citation Format: Tobi A. Cawthra, Laura Pinsoneault, Alexis Krause, Kristen Gardner-Volle, Kim Kinner, Jenelle Elza, Melinda Stolley. Implementing a transdisciplinary framework to build capacity for complex collaboration among academic and non-academic partners [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr B078.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Multilevel Facilitators and Barriers to Healthcare Organization and Delivery among Childhood Cancer Survivors

Brianna M. Miller,Mary Rose Yockel,Burton E. Appel,Chiranjeev Dash,Nicole Harris‐Hollingsworth,Nina S. Kadan Lottick,Arnold L. Potosky,Julia Rowland,Tara Suntum,Katherine Chaillet,Marcelo M. Sleiman,Muriel R. Statman,Kenneth P. Tercyak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.31435

2024-11-13

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

Abstract:Background Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at risk for medical and psychosocial late effects of their disease and its treatment and are recommended to receive annual follow‐ups. Yet, rates of follow‐up adherence are suboptimal and may be influenced by the organization and delivery of their healthcare. This research aimed to examine experts' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to healthcare organization and delivery to CCS. Procedure Thirty‐one clinicians and administrators in a comprehensive cancer center's research consortium were interviewed about system‐level factors that may promote or deter annual follow‐ups among CCS. Interview transcripts were coded and inductively analyzed using a study‐specific scheme. Results Three main themes were identified: (1) healthcare system influences (59%); (2) social determinants of health (25%); and (3) intra/interpersonal factors (16%). Prominent subthemes included age‐related changes in the transition of healthcare responsibility that disrupt ongoing CCS care (28.1%), the breadth and quality of psychosocial support available to navigate CCS to follow‐up (13.5%), and transportation challenges (24.6%; especially in low‐resource areas). In contrast, community trust facilitated follow‐up (17.3%). Conclusion The system of healthcare was prominent in receipt of follow‐up by CCS, and further influenced by social determinants of health and intra/interpersonal factors. Easing transitions of responsibility (from parents to CCS, and acute care to survivorship teams) may be beneficial, especially when social determinants of health obstacles are present. Psychosocial wrap‐around care is essential, along with promoting staff awareness of obstacles that CCS encounter in low‐resource communities.

oncology,pediatrics,hematology

A study of the regeneration of the cerebellum of Xenopus laevis (Daudin) in the larval stages and after metamorphosis.

Length of therapy in relation to counselor estimates of personal integration and other case variables.

Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

Participatory implementation science to increase the impact of evidence-based cancer prevention and control

Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science for cancer research

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Practitioner perspectives on equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions for cancer prevention and control

Implementation strategies in the Exploration and Preparation phases of a colorectal cancer screening intervention in community health centers

Factors influencing implementation of a care coordination intervention for cancer survivors with multiple comorbidities in a safety-net system: an application of the Implementation Research Logic Model

From what works to what matters: Whole person cancer care and the integrative oncology leadership collaborative (IOLC).

Engaging national and regional partners to accelerate broad-scale implementation of nurse-developed interventions

Expanding Outcomes in Cancer Screening Safety Net Programs: Promoting Sustainability and Policy Reform

Champions to enhance implementation of clinical and community-based interventions in cancer: a scoping review

The role of collaborative governance in translating national cancer programs into network-based practices: A longitudinal case study in Canada

"Now is the time for institutions to be investing in growing exercise programs as part of standard of care": a multiple case study examining the implementation of exercise oncology interventions

Describing a programme of implementation‐effectiveness research on the organization and implementation of frontline nursing care delivery into diverse heath systems

Partnering to Promote Equality in Cancer Care

Interventions addressing health-related social needs among patients with cancer

Key Informants’ Perspectives on Implementing a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening Program in a Safety Net Healthcare System: Leadership, Successes, and Barriers

Abstract B078: Implementing a transdisciplinary framework to build capacity for complex collaboration among academic and non-academic partners

Multilevel Facilitators and Barriers to Healthcare Organization and Delivery among Childhood Cancer Survivors