Search

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area.Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions.Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions.Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

PURPOSE: Identifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams—or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS. CONCLUSION: This study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

This article presents a case study of a scientist–practitioner research network established by the National Cancer Institute’s State and Community Tobacco Control Research Initiative. While prior programs have focused on collaboration among scientists, a goal here was to encourage collaborations with non-university, practice-based partners. Two stages of analyses examine growth in the network and collaboration outcomes over a 2-year timeframe. First, visual and descriptive analyses were used to assess the network’s structure and characteristics. Second, regression modeling was used to assess the relationship between investigator characteristics on active collaboration with non-university partners in research and coauthorship. Network analysis revealed an increasing number of connections, low and decreasing density, increasing centralization and select individuals with high degree and betweenness centralities. Investigator seniority and experience did not predict the active partner connections. Rather, scientists’ betweenness centrality, or the extent to which they acted as bridges across the network, was the key predictor of collaboration. This finding suggests a novel way for dissemination-focused research programs to identify super-connector investigators to foster practitioner linkages.

Collaborations among researchers and across disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries are vital to address increasingly complex challenges and opportunities in science and society. In addition, unprecedented technological advances create new opportunities to capitalize on a broader range of expertise and information in scientific collaborations. Yet rapid increases in the demand for scientific collaborations have outpaced changes in the factors needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures and policies, scientific culture, and funding opportunities. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) field arose with the goal of empirically addressing questions from funding agencies, administrators, and scientists regarding the value of team science (TS) and strategies for successfully leading, engaging in, facilitating, and supporting science teams. Closely related fields have rich histories studying teams, groups, organizations, and management and have built a body of evidence for effective teaming in contexts such as industry and the military. Yet few studies had focused on science teams. Unique contextual factors within the scientific enterprise create an imperative to study these teams in context, and provide opportunities to advance understanding of other complex forms of collaboration. This review summarizes the empirical findings from the SciTS literature, which center around five key themes: the value of TS, team composition and its influence on TS performance, formation of science teams, team processes central to effective team functioning, and institutional influences on TS. Cross-cutting issues are discussed in the context of new research opportunities to further advance SciTS evidence and better inform policies and practices for effective TS. (PsycINFO Database Record

This article features qualitative data from in-depth interviews of alumni from a long-standing, structured, postdoctoral research training program. Alumni from diverse scientific disciplines and representing 25 years of the program’s history reflected on the training curriculum and career preparation as it relates to their current career path., Published evaluations of career preparation of alumni from long-standing postdoctoral fellowship programs in the biomedical sciences are limited and often focus on quantitative analysis of data from extant publicly available sources. Qualitative methods provide the opportunity to gather robust information about specific program elements from structured postdoctoral training programs and the influence of this training on subsequent career paths of alumni. In-depth interviews with a subset of the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP) alumni (n = 27), representing more than 25 years of the program’s history and multiple career sectors, were conducted to assess alumni reflections on the training environment and career preparation during their time in the CPFP. NVivo software was used to analyze data and identify major themes. Four main themes emerged from these interviews, including: the value of structured training curriculum, mentorship, transdisciplinary environment, and professional identity. Even when reflecting on training that occurred one to two decades earlier, alumni were able to highlight specific components of a structured postdoctoral training program as influencing their research and career trajectories. These results may have relevance for those interested in assessing how postdoctoral training can influence fellows throughout their careers and understanding salient features of structured programs.

The purpose of this study was to examine the career paths of alumni from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP), a structured in-house postdoctoral training program of 3-4 years duration, and specifically what proportion of the alumni were currently performing cancer prevention-related activities. The analyses here included 119 CPFP alumni and 85 unsuccessful CPFP applicants, all of whom completed postdoctoral training between 1987-2011 and are currently employed. Postdoctoral training experiences and current career outcomes data were collected via online surveys. Differences between groups were assessed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test p-values and subsequent regression analyses adjusted for differences between the groups. Compared to 15.3% of unsuccessful CPFP applicants, 52.1% of CPFP alumni (odds ratio [OR] = 4.99, 95% confidence interval [95% CI): 1.91-13.0) were currently spending the majority of their time working in cancer prevention. Among those doing any cancer prevention-focused work, 54.3% of CPFP alumni spent the majority of their time performing cancer prevention research activities when compared to 25.5% of unsuccessful applicants (OR = 4.26, 95% CI: 1.38-13.2). In addition to the independent effect of the NCI CPFP, scientific discipline, and employment sector were also associated with currently working in cancer prevention and involvement in cancer prevention research-related activities. These results from a structured postdoctoral training program are relevant not only to the cancer prevention community but also to those interested in evaluating alignment of postdoctoral training programs with available and desired career paths more broadly.

In 2011, the National Cancer Institute launched the Research to Reality (R2R) Pilot Mentorship Program to enhance mentees' core evidence-based public health (EBPH) competencies. In this article, we describe the program and its evaluation results and the program's ability to improve participants' EBPH competencies and appropriateness of program components. Program evaluation consisted of a pre/post program competency questionnaire and interviews with mentees, mentors, mentees' supervisors, and program staff. Mentees reported the same or higher rating in every competency at end of the program, with average increase of 0.6 points on a 4-point scale; the greatest improvements were seen in policy development/program planning. Mentorship programs are a promising strategy to develop EBPH competencies, provide guidance, and disseminate and adapt evidence-based interventions within real-world context.