Search

PurposeTo improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members' capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN's experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners' capacity-building initiatives.MethodsWe conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes.ResultsThree themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond.ConclusionCPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

School-based programs are widely implemented to combat childhood obesity, but these programs have mixed results. Dissemination and implementation science approaches to evaluation using qualitative methods can provide more robust details about program functioning that may be able to help explain the variation in the impact of these programs. Fourteen in-depth interviews were conducted with classroom teachers implementing a school-based program, the Integrated Nutrition Education Program (INEP), to explore their experience. Factors related to organization, individual and intervention levels emerged as facilitators and barriers to program implementation. Key factors were school culture at the organization level, individual perception and belief in the intervention at the individual level and program content, perceived complexity and adaptability at the intervention level. Socioeconomic status of the community and family involvement were contextual factors identified across all levels. Findings from this qualitative evaluation can be used for the quality improvement of INEP, but beyond this these can also be informative for other school-based programs to promote adoption, implementation and maintenance.

BACKGROUND:The impact of cancer and its treatment on employment and financial burden in adolescents/young adults (AYAs) is not fully known. METHODS:Eligibility for this cross-sectional study of AYA cancer survivors included the diagnosis of a malignancy between ages 18 and 39 years and survey completion within 1 to 5 years from diagnosis and ≥1 year after therapy completion. Participants were selected randomly from the tumor registries of 7 participating sites and completed an online patient-reported outcomes survey to assess employment and financial concerns. Treatment data were abstracted from medical records. Data were analyzed across diagnoses and by tumor site using logistic regression and Wald-based 95% confidence intervals adjusting for age (categorized), sex, insurance status, education (categorized), and treatment exposures. RESULTS:Participants included 872 survivors (breast cancer, n = 241; thyroid cancer, n = 126; leukemia/lymphoma, n = 163; other malignancies, n = 342). Exposure to chemotherapy in breast cancer survivors was associated with an increase in self-reported mental impairment in work tasks (odds ratio [OR], 2.66) and taking unpaid time off (OR, 2.62); survivors of "other" malignancies reported an increase in mental impairment of work tasks (OR, 3.67) and borrowing >$10,000 (OR, 3.43). Radiation exposure was associated with an increase of mental impairment in work tasks (OR, 2.05) in breast cancer survivors, taking extended paid time off work in thyroid cancer survivors (OR, 5.05), and physical impairment in work tasks in survivors of "other" malignancies (OR, 3.11). Finally, in survivors of "other" malignancies, having undergone surgery was associated with an increase in physical (OR, 3.11) and mental impairment (OR, 2.31) of work tasks. CONCLUSIONS:Cancer treatment has a significant impact on AYA survivors' physical and mental work capacity and time off from work.

Multiple evidence-based approaches (EBAs) exist to improve colorectal cancer screening in health clinics. The success of these approaches is tied to effective implementation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the implementation of EBAs for colorectal cancer screening and clinic-level correlates of implementation in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). We conducted descriptive and cross-sectional analyses using data collected from FQHC clinics across seven states ( n = 51). A clinic representative completed electronic surveys about clinic characteristics (e.g., size, patient characteristics, and medical record system characteristics) and the implementation of Community Guide recommended EBAs (e.g., client reminders, small media, and provider assessment and feedback). We used bivariate Spearman correlations to assess clinic-level correlates with implementation outcomes. Most clinics were planning to implement, in the early implementation stages, or inconsistently implementing EBAs. No EBA was fully implemented by more than nine (17.6%) clinics. Clinic size variables were inversely related to implementation levels of one-on-one education; medical record variables were directly related to implementation levels of client and provider reminders as well as provider assessment and feedback; and rapid and timely feedback from clinic leaders was directly associated with implementation levels of four out of six EBAs. Given the varying levels of implementation, clinics need to assess current use of implementation strategies and improve effective program delivery to increase colorectal cancer screening among their patients. In addition, clinics should also consider how their characteristics may support or serve as a barrier to implementation in their respective settings.

ObjectiveTo operationalize constructs from each of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains and to present psychometric properties within the context of evidence-based approaches for promoting colorectal cancer screening in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs).MethodsData were collected from FQHC clinics across seven states. A web-based Staff Survey and a Clinic Characteristics Survey were completed by staff and leaders (n = 277) from 59 FQHCs.ResultsInternal reliability of scales was adequate ranging from 0.62 for compatibility to 0.88 for other personal attributes (openness). Intraclass correlations for the scales indicated that 2.4 percent to 20.9 percent of the variance in scale scores occurs within clinics. Discriminant validity was adequate at the clinic level, with all correlations less than 0.75. Convergent validity was more difficult to assess given lack of hypothesized associations between factors expected to predict implementation.ConclusionsOur results move the field forward by describing initial psychometric properties of constructs across CFIR domains.

BackgroundScientists and practitioners alike need reliable, valid measures of contextual factors that influence implementation. Yet, few existing measures demonstrate reliability or validity. To meet this need, we developed and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of several constructs within the Inner Setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).MethodsWe searched the literature for existing measures for the 7 Inner Setting domain constructs (Culture Overall, Culture Stress, Culture Effort, Implementation Climate, Learning Climate, Leadership Engagement, and Available Resources). We adapted items for the healthcare context, pilot-tested the adapted measures in 4 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and implemented the revised measures in 78 FQHCs in the 7 states (N = 327 respondents) with a focus on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices. To psychometrically assess our measures, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA; structural validity), assessed inter-item consistency (reliability), computed scale correlations (discriminant validity), and calculated inter-rater reliability and agreement (organization-level construct reliability and validity).ResultsCFAs for most constructs exhibited good model fit (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, SRMR

Introduction to the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration: advancing efficient methodologies through team science and community partnerships Cara Lewis, Doyanne Darnell, Suzanne Kerns, Maria Monroe-DeVita, Sara J. Landes, Aaron R. Lyon, Cameo Stanick, Shannon Dorsey, Jill Locke, Brigid Marriott, Ajeng Puspitasari, Caitlin Dorsey, Karin Hendricks, Andria Pierson, Phil Fizur, Katherine A. Comtois A1: A behavioral economic perspective on adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions Lawrence A. Palinkas A2: Towards making scale up of evidence-based practices in child welfare systems more efficient and affordable Patricia Chamberlain A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A5: Efficient synthesis: Using qualitative comparative analysis and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research across diverse studies Laura J. Damschroder, Julie C. Lowery A6: Establishing a veterans engagement group to empower patients and inform Veterans Affairs (VA) health services research Sarah S. Ono, Kathleen F. Carlson, Erika K. Cottrell, Maya E. O’Neil, Travis L. Lovejoy A7: Building patient-practitioner partnerships in community oncology settings to implement behavioral interventions for anxious and depressed cancer survivors Joanna J. Arch, Jill L. Mitchell A8: Tailoring a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy implementation protocol using mixed methods, conjoint analysis, and implementation teams Cara C. Lewis, Brigid R. Marriott, Kelli Scott A9: Wraparound Structured Assessment and Review (WrapSTAR): An efficient, yet comprehensive approach to Wraparound implementation evaluation Jennifer Schurer Coldiron, Eric J. Bruns, Alyssa N. Hook A10: Improving the efficiency of standardized patient assessment of clinician fidelity: A comparison of automated actor-based and manual clinician-based ratings Benjamin C. Graham, Katelin Jordan A11: Measuring fidelity on the cheap Rochelle F. Hanson, Angela Moreland, Benjamin E. Saunders, Heidi S. Resnick A12: Leveraging routine clinical materials to assess fidelity to an evidence-based psychotherapy Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Cassidy A. Gutner, Jennifer Gamarra, Dawne Vogt, Michael Suvak, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Katherine Dondanville, Jeffrey S. Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Alan L. Peterson, Elisa V. Borah, Brett T. Litz, Alma Molino, Stacey Young McCaughanPatricia A. Resick A13: The video vignette survey: An efficient process for gathering diverse community opinions to inform an intervention Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Neftali Serrano, Armando Hernandez, Elizabeth Zeidler- Schreiter, Natalie Wietfeldt, Zaher Karp A14: Using integrated administrative data to evaluate implementation of a behavioral health and trauma screening for children and youth in foster care Michael D. Pullmann, Barbara Lucenko, Bridget Pavelle, Jacqueline A. Uomoto, Andrea Negrete, Molly Cevasco, Suzanne E. U. Kerns A15: Intermediary organizations as a vehicle to promote efficiency and speed of implementation Robert P. Franks, Christopher Bory A16: Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs directly to qualitative data: The power of implementation science in action Edward J. Miech, Teresa M. Damush A17: Efficient and effective scaling-up, screening, brief interventions, and referrals to treatment (SBIRT) training: a snowball implementation model Jason Satterfield, Derek Satre, Maria Wamsley, Patrick Yuan, Patricia O’Sullivan A18: Matching models of implementation to system needs and capacities: addressing the human factor Helen Best, Susan Velasquez A19: Agency characteristics that facilitate efficient and successful implementation efforts Miya Barnett, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Jennifer Regan, Nicole Stadnick, Alison Hamilton, Anna Lau A20: Rapid assessment process: Application to the Prevention and Early Intervention transformation in Los Angeles County Jennifer Regan, Alison Hamilton, Nicole Stadnick, Miya Barnett, Anna Lau, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A21: The development of the Evidence-Based Practice-Concordant Care Assessment: An assessment tool to examine treatment strategies across practices Nicole Stadnick, Anna Lau, Miya Barnett, Jennifer Regan, Scott Roesch, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A22: Refining a compilation of discrete implementation strategies and determining their importance and feasibility Byron J. Powell, Thomas J. Waltz, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica M. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A23: Structuring complex recommendations: Methods and general findings Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica J. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A24: Implementing prolonged exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Expert recommendations from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project Monica M. Matthieu, Craig S. Rosen, Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A25: When readiness is a luxury: Co-designing a risk assessment and quality assurance process with violence prevention frontline workers in Seattle, WA Sarah C. Walker, Asia S. Bishop, Mariko Lockhart A26: Implementation potential of structured recidivism risk assessments with justice- involved veterans: Qualitative perspectives from providers Allison L. Rodriguez, Luisa Manfredi, Andrea Nevedal, Joel Rosenthal, Daniel M. Blonigen A27: Developing empirically informed readiness measures for providers and agencies for the Family Check-Up using a mixed methods approach Anne M. Mauricio, Thomas D. Dishion, Jenna Rudo-Stern, Justin D. Smith A28: Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism Jill Locke, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Colleen Harker, Anne Olsen, Travis Shingledecker, Frances Barg, David Mandell, Rinad S. Beidas A29: Problem Solving Teletherapy (PST.Net): A stakeholder analysis examining the feasibility and acceptability of teletherapy in community based aging services Marissa C. Hansen, Maria P. Aranda, Isabel Torres-Vigil A30: A case of collaborative intervention design eventuating in behavior therapy sustainment and diffusion Bryan Hartzler A31: Implementation of suicide risk prevention in an integrated delivery system: Mental health specialty services Bradley Steinfeld, Tory Gildred, Zandrea Harlin, Fredric Shephard A32: Implementation team, checklist, evaluation, and feedback (ICED): A step-by-step approach to Dialectical Behavior Therapy program implementation Matthew S. Ditty, Andrea Doyle, John A. Bickel III, Katharine Cristaudo A33: The challenges in implementing muliple evidence-based practices in a community mental health setting Dan Fox, Sonia Combs A34: Using electronic health record technology to promote and support evidence-based practice assessment and treatment intervention David H. Lischner A35: Are existing frameworks adequate for measuring implementation outcomes? Results from a new simulation methodology Richard A. Van Dorn, Stephen J. Tueller, Jesse M. Hinde, Georgia T. Karuntzos A36: Taking global local: Evaluating training of Washington State clinicians in a modularized cogntive behavioral therapy approach designed for low-resource settings Maria Monroe-DeVita, Roselyn Peterson, Doyanne Darnell, Lucy Berliner, Shannon Dorsey, Laura K. Murray A37: Attitudes toward evidence-based practices across therapeutic orientations Yevgeny Botanov, Beverly Kikuta, Tianying Chen, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Anthony DuBose, Kathryn E. Korslund, Marsha M. Linehan A38: Predicting the use of an evidence-based intervention for autism in birth-to-three programs Colleen M. Harker, Elizabeth A. Karp, Sarah R. Edmunds, Lisa V. Ibañez, Wendy L. Stone A39: Supervision practices and improved fidelity across evidence-based practices: A literature review Mimi Choy-Brown A40: Beyond symptom tracking: clinician perceptions of a hybrid measurement feedback system for monitoring treatment fidelity and client progress Jack H. Andrews, Benjamin D. Johnides, Estee M. Hausman, Kristin M. Hawley A41: A guideline decision support tool: From creation to implementation Beth Prusaczyk, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Graham Colditz, Enola K. Proctor A42: Dabblers, bedazzlers, or total makeovers: Clinician modification of a common elements cognitive behavioral therapy approach Rosemary D. Meza, Shannon Dorsey, Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman, Georganna Sedlar, Leah Lucid A43: Characterization of context and its role in implementation: The impact of structure, infrastructure, and metastructure Caitlin Dorsey, Brigid Marriott, Nelson Zounlome, Cara Lewis A44: Effects of consultation method on implementation of cognitive processing therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder Cassidy A. Gutner, Candice M. Monson, Norman Shields, Marta Mastlej, Meredith SH Landy, Jeanine Lane, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman A45: Cross-validation of the Implementation Leadership Scale factor structure in child welfare service organizations Natalie K. Finn, Elisa M. Torres, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Gregory A. Aarons A46: Sustainability of integrated smoking cessation care in Veterans Affairs posttraumatic stress disorder clinics: A qualitative analysis of focus group data from learning collaborative participants Carol A. Malte, Aline Lott, Andrew J. Saxon A47: Key characteristics of effective mental health trainers: The creation of the Measure of Effective Attributes of Trainers (MEAT) Meredith Boyd, Kelli Scott, Cara C. Lewis A48: Coaching to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) Jennifer D. Pierce A49: Factors influencing the implementation of peer-led health promotion programs targeting seniors: A literature review Agathe Lorthios-Guilledroit, Lucie Richard, Johanne Filiatrault A50: Developing treatment fidelity rating systems for psychotherapy research: Recommendations and lessons learned Kevin Hallgren, Shirley Crotwell, Rosa Muñoz, Becky Gius, Benjamin Ladd, Barbara McCrady, Elizabeth Epstein A51: Rapid translation of alcohol prevention science John D. Clapp, Danielle E. Ruderman A52: Factors implicated in successful implementation: evidence to inform improved implementation from high and low-income countries Melanie Barwick, Raluca Barac, Stanley Zlotkin, Laila Salim, Marnie Davidson A53: Tracking implementation strategies prospectively: A practical approach Alicia C. Bunger, Byron J. Powell, Hillary A. Robertson A54: Trained but not implementing: the need for effective implementation planning tools Christopher Botsko A55: Evidence, context, and facilitation variables related to implementation of Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Qualitative results from a mixed methods inquiry in the Department of Veterans Affairs Sara J. Landes, Brandy N. Smith, Allison L. Rodriguez, Lindsay R. Trent, Monica M. Matthieu A56: Learning from implementation as usual in children’s mental health Byron J. Powell, Enola K. Proctor A57: Rates and predictors of implementation after Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intensive Training Melanie S. Harned, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Kathryn E. Korslund, Tianying Chen, Anthony DuBose, André Ivanoff, Marsha M. Linehan A58: Socio-contextual determinants of research evidence use in public-youth systems of care Antonio R. Garcia, Minseop Kim, Lawrence A. Palinkas, Lonnie Snowden, John Landsverk A59: Community resource mapping to integrate evidence-based depression treatment in primary care in Brazil: A pilot project Annika C. Sweetland, Maria Jose Fernandes, Edilson Santos, Cristiane Duarte, Afrânio Kritski, Noa Krawczyk, Caitlin Nelligan, Milton L. Wainberg A60: The use of concept mapping to efficiently identify determinants of implementation in the National Institute of Health--President’s Emergent Plan for AIDS Relief Prevention of Mother to Child HIV Transmission Implementation Science Alliance Gregory A. Aarons, David H. Sommerfeld, Benjamin Chi, Echezona Ezeanolue, Rachel Sturke, Lydia Kline, Laura Guay, George Siberry A61: Longitudinal remote consultation for implementing collaborative care for depression Ian M. Bennett, Rinad Beidas, Rachel Gold, Johnny Mao, Diane Powers, Mindy Vredevoogd, Jurgen Unutzer A62: Integrating a peer coach model to support program implementation and ensure long- term sustainability of the Incredible Years in community-based settings Jennifer Schroeder, Lane Volpe, Julie Steffen A63: Efficient sustainability: Existing community based supervisors as evidence-based treatment supports Shannon Dorsey, Michael D Pullmann, Suzanne E. U. Kerns, Nathaniel Jungbluth, Lucy Berliner, Kelly Thompson, Eliza Segell A64: Establishment of a national practice-based implementation network to accelerate adoption of evidence-based and best practices Pearl McGee-Vincent, Nancy Liu, Robyn Walser, Jennifer Runnals, R. Keith Shaw, Sara J. Landes, Craig Rosen, Janet Schmidt, Patrick Calhoun A65: Facilitation as a mechanism of implementation in a practice-based implementation network: Improving care in a Department of Veterans Affairs post-traumatic stress disorder outpatient clinic Ruth L. Varkovitzky, Sara J. Landes A66: The ACT SMART Toolkit: An implementation strategy for community-based organizations providing services to children with autism spectrum disorder Amy Drahota, Jonathan I. Martinez, Brigitte Brikho, Rosemary Meza, Aubyn C. Stahmer, Gregory A. Aarons A67: Supporting Policy In Health with Research: An intervention trial (SPIRIT) - protocol and early findings Anna Williamson A68: From evidence based practice initiatives to infrastructure: Lessons learned from a public behavioral health system’s efforts to promote evidence based practices Ronnie M. Rubin, Byron J. Powell, Matthew O. Hurford, Shawna L. Weaver, Rinad S. Beidas, David S. Mandell, Arthur C. Evans A69: Applying the policy ecology model to Philadelphia’s behavioral health transformation efforts Byron J. Powell, Rinad S. Beidas, Ronnie M. Rubin, Rebecca E. Stewart, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Samantha L. Matlin, Shawna Weaver, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans, Trevor R. Hadley, David S. Mandell A70: A model for providing methodological expertise to advance dissemination and implementation of health discoveries in Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions Donald R. Gerke, Beth Prusaczyk, Ana Baumann, Ericka M. Lewis, Enola K. Proctor A71: Establishing a research agenda for the Triple P Implementation Framework Jenna McWilliam, Jacquie Brown, Michelle Tucker A72: Cheap and fast, but what is “best?”: Examining implementation outcomes across sites in a state-wide scaled-up evidence-based walking program, Walk With Ease Kathleen P Conte A73: Measurement feedback systems in mental health: Initial review of capabilities and characteristics Aaron R. Lyon, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Cara C. Lewis, Freda Liu, Nathaniel Jungbluth A74: A qualitative investigation of case managers’ attitudes toward implementation of a measurement feedback system in a public mental health system for youth Amelia Kotte, Kaitlin A. Hill, Albert C. Mah, Priya A. Korathu-Larson, Janelle R. Au, Sonia Izmirian, Scott Keir, Brad J. Nakamura, Charmaine K. Higa-McMillan A75: Multiple pathways to sustainability: Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to uncover the necessary and sufficient conditions for successful community-based implementation Brittany Rhoades Cooper, Angie Funaiole, Eleanor Dizon A76: Prescribers’ perspectives on opioids and benzodiazepines and medication alerts to reduce co-prescribing of these medications Eric J. Hawkins, Carol A. Malte, Hildi J. Hagedorn, Douglas Berger, Anissa Frank, Aline Lott, Carol E. Achtmeyer, Anthony J. Mariano, Andrew J. Saxon A77: Adaptation of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management for comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders: Delivery of evidence-based treatment for anxiety in addictions treatment centers Kate Wolitzky-Taylor, Richard Rawson, Richard Ries, Peter Roy-Byrne, Michelle Craske A78: Opportunities and challenges of measuring program implementation with online surveys Dena Simmons, Catalina Torrente, Lori Nathanson, Grace Carroll A79: Observational assessment of fidelity to a family-centered prevention program: Effectiveness and efficiency Justin D. Smith, Kimbree Brown, Karina Ramos, Nicole Thornton, Thomas J. Dishion, Elizabeth A. Stormshak, Daniel S. Shaw, Melvin N. Wilson A80: Strategies and challenges in housing first fidelity: A multistate qualitative analysis Mimi Choy-Brown, Emmy Tiderington, Bikki Tran Smith, Deborah K. Padgett A81: Procurement and contracting as an implementation strategy: Getting To Outcomes® contracting Ronnie M. Rubin, Marilyn L. Ray, Abraham Wandersman, Andrea Lamont, Gordon Hannah, Kassandra A. Alia, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans A82: Web-based feedback to aid successful implementation: The interactive Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC)TM tool Lisa Saldana, Holle Schaper, Mark Campbell, Patricia Chamberlain A83: Efficient methodologies for monitoring fidelity in routine implementation: Lessons from the Allentown Social Emotional Learning Initiative Valerie B. Shapiro, B.K. Elizabeth Kim, Jennifer L. Fleming, Paul A. LeBuffe A84: The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) implementation development workshop: Results from a new methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals Sara J. Landes, Cara C. Lewis, Allison L. Rodriguez, Brigid R. Marriott, Katherine Anne Comtois A85: An update on the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Project

BackgroundEnhancing the capability of community health centers to implement best practices (BPs) may mitigate health disparities. This study investigated the association of practice adaptive reserve (PAR) with the implementation of patient-centered medical home (PCMH) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening BPs at community health center clinics in 7 states.MethodsA convenience sample of clinic staff participated in a self-administered, online survey. Eight PCMH CRC screening BPs were scored as a composite ranging from 0 to 32. The PAR composite score was scaled from 0 to 1 and then categorized into 3 levels. Multilevel analyses examined the relation between PAR and self-reported implementation of PCMH BPs.ResultsThere were 296 respondents, and 59% reported 6 or more PCMH BPs at their clinics. The mean PAR score was 0.66 (standard deviation, 0.18), and the PCMH BP mean scores were significantly higher for respondents who reported higher clinic PAR categories. In comparison with the lowest PAR level, adjusted PCMH BP means were 25.0% higher at the middle PAR level (difference, 3.2; standard error, 1.3; t = 2.44; P = .015) and 63.2% higher at the highest PAR level (difference, 8.0; standard error, 1.9; t = 4.86; P

PurposeSurvivorship care plans (SCPs) have been suggested to reduce fragmentation of care experienced by cancer survivors. Acceptance of SCPs is high, but trials in the United States are few. This pilot study used a quasiexperimental design to examine the outcomes achieved by breast cancer survivors receiving a standardized SCP visit at one of seven comprehensive cancer centers.Materials and methodsOutcomes were assessed before and again 3 months after delivery of an SCP and included survivors' use of and satisfaction with SCPs, perceived knowledge about survivorship, and assessment of the quality and coordination of survivorship care.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine survivors of breast cancer completed baseline and follow-up measures and received a standardized SCP visit. Participants most commonly used SCP materials to make decisions about exercise (64%), which tests to receive and when (62%), and dietary changes (62%). Only 21% shared the SCP with their primary care provider during that time. Satisfaction with the SCP was high, with 90% of participants reporting being at least satisfied with the SCP. Perceived knowledge about survivorship improved after SCP delivery, as did perceived care coordination and the provider's knowledge of the effects of cancer on survivors (all P < .001). Individuals closer to the time of diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of SCPs.ConclusionThis study demonstrates improvements in perceived knowledge and quality of survivorship care after receipt of a comprehensive SCP. Survivors were satisfied with their SCP, and those closer to diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of the materials.

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.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events experienced before the age of 18 and include experiences of abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Exposure to ACEs early in life is a risk factor for adverse physical and mental health outcomes in adulthood, which may lead to subsequent child abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. This study examined a rural community's barriers and facilitators to addressing ACEs in families with young children from the perspective of organizations serving children and families. The Innovation Corps (I-Corps) methodology was used to develop an ecosystem map of 64 community stakeholders, including 12 government, 13 healthcare, 27 early childhood education (ECE), and 12 community-based organizations, involved in the community's system of care for families with young children. Representatives from the stakeholder organizations identified in the ecosystem map were then recruited via purposeful and snowball sampling, and semistructured interviews were conducted with 37 participants. Transcribed notes and direct quotes were analyzed using a constant comparison analysis approach, and five themes emerged from the analysis. Barriers to addressing ACEs included limited mental health resources in ECE settings for both children and teachers, stigma, and limited access to local healthcare, while facilitators included establishing trusted relationships between organizations and families and using strengths-based approaches with families. This study characterized facilitators and barriers to addressing ACEs in families with young children residing in a rural community and provides guidance to inform future community-level ACEs interventions and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]