Search

BackgroundThis paper identifies and describes measures of constructs relevant to the adoption or implementation of innovations (i.e., new policies, programs or practices) at the organizational-level. This work is intended to advance the field of dissemination and implementation research by aiding scientists in the identification of existing measures and highlighting methodological issues that require additional attention.MethodsWe searched for published studies (1973-2013) in 11 bibliographic databases for quantitative, empirical studies that presented outcome data related to adoption and/or implementation of an innovation. Included studies had to assess latent constructs related to the "inner setting" of the organization, as defined by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsOf the 76 studies included, most (86%) were cross sectional and nearly half (49%) were conducted in health care settings. Nearly half (46%) involved implementation of evidence-based or "best practice" strategies; roughly a quarter (26%) examined use of new technologies. Primary outcomes most often assessed were innovation implementation (57%) and adoption (34%); while 4% of included studies assessed both outcomes. There was wide variability in conceptual and operational definitions of organizational constructs. The two most frequently assessed constructs included "organizational climate" and "readiness for implementation." More than half (55%) of the studies did not articulate an organizational theory or conceptual framework guiding the inquiry; about a third (34%) referenced Diffusion of Innovations theory. Overall, only 46% of articles reported psychometric properties of measures assessing latent organizational characteristics. Of these, 94% (33/35) described reliability and 71% (25/35) reported on validity.ConclusionsThe lack of clarity associated with construct definitions, inconsistent use of theory, absence of standardized reporting criteria for implementation research, and the fact that few measures have demonstrated reliability or validity were among the limitations highlighted in our review. Given these findings, we recommend that increased attention be devoted toward the development or refinement of measures using common psychometric standards. In addition, there is a need for measure development and testing across diverse settings, among diverse population samples, and for a variety of types of innovations.

ContextColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death among cancers affecting both men and women in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) supports both direct clinical screening services (screening provision) and activities to promote screening at the population level (screening promotion).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to characterize patient navigation (PN) programs for screening provision and promotion for the first 1 to 2 years of program funding.ParticipantsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of the 29 CRCCP grantees (25 states and 4 tribal organizations) and 14 in-depth interviews to assess program implementation.Main outcome measuresThe survey and interview guide collected information on CRC screening provision and promotion activities and PN, including the structure of the PN program, characteristics of the navigators, funding mechanism, and navigators' activities.ResultsTwenty-four of 28 CRCCP grantees of the survey used PN for screening provision whereas 18 grantees used navigation for screening promotion. Navigators were often trained in nursing or public health. Navigation activities were similar for both screening provision and promotion, and common tasks included assessing and responding to patient barriers to screening, providing patient education, and scheduling appointments. For screening provision, activities centered on making reminder calls, educating patients on bowel preparation for colonoscopies, and tracking patients for completion of the tests. Navigation may influence screening quality by improving patients' bowel preparation for colonoscopies.ConclusionsOur study provides insights into PN across a federally funded CRC program. Results suggest that PN activities may be instrumental in recruiting people into cancer screening and ensuring completed screening and follow-up.

BackgroundSpecial events are common community-based strategies for health promotion. This paper presents findings from a systematic literature review on the impact of special events to promote breast, cervical or colorectal cancer education and screening.MethodsArticles in English that focused on special events involving breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer conducted in the U.S. and published between January 1990 and December 2011 were identified from seven databases: Ovid, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstract, Cochrane Libraries, and EconLit. Study inclusion and data extraction were independently validated by two researchers.ResultsOf the 20 articles selected for screening out of 1,409, ten articles on special events reported outcome data. Five types of special events were found: health fairs, parties, cultural events, special days, and plays. Many focused on breast cancer only, or in combination with other cancers. Reach ranged from 50-1732 participants. All special events used at least one evidence-based strategy suggested by the Community Guide to Preventive Services, such as small media, one-on-one education, and reducing structural barriers. For cancer screening as an outcome of the events, mammography screening rates ranged from 4.8% to 88%, Pap testing was 3.9%, and clinical breast exams ranged from 9.1% to 100%. For colorectal screening, FOBT ranged from 29.4% to 76%, and sigmoidoscopy was 100% at one event. Outcome measures included intentions to get screened, scheduled appointments, uptake of clinical exams, and participation in cancer screening.ConclusionsSpecial events found in the review varied and used evidence-based strategies. Screening data suggest that some special events can lead to increases in cancer screening, especially if they provide onsite screening services. However, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that special events are effective in increasing cancer screening. The heterogeneity of populations served, event activities, outcome variables assessed, and the reliance on self-report to measure screening limit conclusions. This study highlights the need for further research to determine the effectiveness of special events to increase cancer screening.

BackgroundAlthough cancer research has advanced at a rapid pace, a gap remains between what is known about how to improve cancer prevention and control (CPC) and what is implemented as best practices within health care systems and communities. The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN), with more than 10 years of dissemination and implementation research experience, aims to accelerate the uptake and use of evidence-based CPC interventions.MethodsThe collective work of the CPCRN has facilitated the analysis and categorization of research and implementation efforts according to the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF), providing a useful heuristic for bridging the gap between prevention research and practice. The ISF authors have called for examples of its application as input to help refine the model.ResultsWe provide examples of how the collaborative activities supported by the CPCRN, using community-engaged processes, accelerated the synthesis and translation of evidence, built both general and innovation-specific capacity, and worked with delivery systems to advance cancer control research and practice.ConclusionsThe work of the CPCRN has provided real-world examples of the application of the ISF and demonstrated that synthesizing and translating evidence can increase the potential that evidence-based CPC programs will be used and that capacity building for both the support system and the delivery system is crucial for the successful implementation and maintenance of evidence-based cancer control.ImpactAdoption and implementation of CPC can be enhanced by better understanding ISF systems and intervening to improve them.