Search

Background Many public health programs fail because of an inability to implement tested interventions in diverse, complex settings. The field of implementation science is engaged in developing strategies for successful implementation, but current training is primarily researcher-focused. To tackle the challenges of the twenty-first century, public health leaders are promoting a new model titled Public Health 3.0 where public health practitioners become “chief health strategists” and develop interdisciplinary skills for multisector engagement to achieve impact. This requires broad training for public health practitioners in implementation science that includes the allied fields of systems and design thinking, quality improvement, and innovative evaluation methods. At UNC Chapel Hill’s Gillings School of Global Public Health, we created an interdisciplinary set of courses in applied implementation science for Master of Public Health (MPH) students and public health practitioners. We describe our rationale, conceptual approach, pedagogy, courses, and initial results to assist other schools contemplating similar programs. Methods Our conceptual approach recognized the vital relationship between implementation research and practice. We conducted a literature review of thought leaders in public health to identify skill areas related to implementation science that are priorities for the future workforce. We also reviewed currently available training programs in implementation science to understand their scope and objectives and to assess whether any of these would be a fit for these priorities. We used a design focused implementation framework to create four linked courses drawing from multiple fields such as engineering, management, and the social sciences and emphasizing application through case studies. We validated the course content by mapping them to implementation science competencies in the literature. Results To date, there is no other program that provides comprehensive interdisciplinary skills in applied implementation science for MPH students. As of April 2018, we have offered a total of eleven sections of the four courses, with a total enrollment of 142, of whom 127 have been master’s-level students in the school of public health. Using Kirkpatrick’s Model, we found positive student reaction, learning, and behavior. Many students have completed applied implementation science focused practicums, master’s papers, and special studies. Conclusions A systematically designed interdisciplinary curriculum in applied implementation science for MPH students has been found by students to be a useful set of skills. Students have demonstrated the capability to master this material and incorporate it into their practicums and master’s papers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0866-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Carolinas Center for Medical Excellence launched the PEACE project in 2006, under contract with the Centers for MedicareMedicaid Services (CMS), to identify, develop, and pilot test quality measures for hospice and palliative care programs.The project collected pilot data to test the usability and feasibility of potential quality measures and data collection processes for hospice and palliative care programs. Settings/subjects: Twenty-two hospices participating in a national Quality Improvement Collaborative (QIC) submitted data from 367 chart reviews for pain care and 45 chart reviews for nausea care. Fourteen additional hospices completed a one-time data submission of 126 chart reviews on 60 potential patient-level quality measures across eight domains of care and an organizational assessment evaluating structure and processes of care.Usability was assessed by examining the range, variability and size of the populations targeted by each quality measure. Feasibility was assessed during the second pilot study by surveying data abstractors about the abstraction process and examining the rates of missing data. The impact of data collection processes was assessed by comparing results obtained using different processes.Measures shown to be both usable and feasible included: screening for physical symptoms on admission and documentation of treatment preferences. Methods of data collection and measure construction appear to influence observed rates of quality of care.We successfully identified quality measures with potential for use in hospices and palliative care programs. Future research is needed to understand whether these measures are sensitive to quality improvement interventions.

Objective. In response to public health systems and services research priorities, we examined the extent to which participation in accreditation and performance improvement programs can be expected to enhance preparedness capacities. Methods. Using data collected by the Local Health Department Preparedness Capacities Assessment Survey, we applied a series of weighted least-squares models to examine the effect of program participation on each of the eight preparedness domain scores. Participation was differentiated across four groups: North Carolina (NC) accredited local health departments (LHDs), NC non-accredited LHDs, national comparison LHDs that participated in performance or preparedness programs, and national comparison LHDs that did not participate in any program. Results. Domain scores varied among the four groups. Statistically significant positive participation effects were observed on six of eight preparedness domains for NC accreditation programs, on seven domains for national comparison group LHDs that participated in performance programs, and on four domains for NC non-accredited LHDs. Conclusions. Overall, accreditation and other performance improvement programs have a significant and positive effect on preparedness capacities. While we found no differences among accredited and non-accredited NC LHDs, this lack of significant difference in preparedness scores among NC LHDs is attributed to NC's robust statewide preparedness program, as well as a likely exposure effect among non-accredited NC LHDs to the accreditation program.

Adherence to consensus guidelines for cancer care may vary widely across health care settings and contribute to differences in cancer outcomes. For some women with breast cancer, omission of adjuvant chemotherapy or delays in its initiation may contribute to differences in cancer recurrence and mortality. We studied adjuvant chemotherapy use among women with stage II or stage III, hormone receptor–negative breast cancer to understand health system and socio-demographic correlates of under-use and delayed adjuvant chemotherapy. We used Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data to examine the patterns of care for 6,678 women aged 65 and older diagnosed with stage II or stage III hormone receptor–negative breast cancer in 1994–2002, with claims data through 2007. Age-stratified logistic regression was employed to examine the potential role of socio-demographic and structural/organizational health services characteristics in explaining differences in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Overall utilization of guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy peaked at 43% in this population. Increasing age, higher co-morbidity burden, and low-income status were associated with lower odds of chemotherapy initiation within 4 months, whereas having positive lymph nodes, more advanced disease, and being married were associated with higher odds (P < 0.05). Health system–related structural/organizational characteristics and race/ethnicity offered little explanatory insight. Timely initiation of guideline-recommended adjuvant chemotherapy was low, with significant variation by age, income, and co-morbidity status. Based on these findings, future studies should seek to explore the more nuanced reasons why older women do not receive chemotherapy and why delays in care occur.