Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions

BackgroundThe National Cancer Institute (NCI) has supported implementation science for over a decade. We explore the application of implementation science across the cancer control continuum, including prevention, screening, treatment, and survivorship.MethodsWe reviewed funding trends of implementation science grants funded by the NCI between 2000 and 2012. We assessed study characteristics including cancer topic, position on the T2–T4 translational continuum, intended use of frameworks, study design, settings, methods, and replication and cost considerations.ResultsWe identified 67 NCI grant awards having an implementation science focus. R01 was the most common mechanism, and the total number of all awards increased from four in 2003 to 15 in 2012. Prevention grants were most frequent (49.3%) and cancer treatment least common (4.5%). Diffusion of Innovations and Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) were the most widely reported frameworks, but it is unclear how implementation science models informed planned study measures. Most grants (69%) included mixed methods, and half reported replication and cost considerations (49.3%).ConclusionsImplementation science in cancer research is active and diverse but could be enhanced by greater focus on measures development, assessment of how conceptual frameworks and their constructs lead to improved dissemination and implementation outcomes, and harmonization of measures that are valid, reliable, and practical across multiple settings.

[1]  P. Briss,et al.  Translating Research into Improved Outcomes in Comprehensive Cancer Control , 2005, Cancer Causes & Control.

[2]  R. Hiatt,et al.  A new strategy for cancer control research. , 1999, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[3]  A. Kempe,et al.  Importance of mixed methods in pragmatic trials and dissemination and implementation research. , 2013, Academic pediatrics.

[4]  Russell E. Glasgow,et al.  Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research , 2006, Evaluation & the health professions.

[5]  Ian Harvey,et al.  A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[6]  M. Eccles,et al.  Welcome to Implementation Science , 2006, Implementation Science.

[7]  B. Lushniak,et al.  The Health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress : a report of the Surgeon General , 2014 .

[8]  Enola K Proctor,et al.  Implementation strategies: recommendations for specifying and reporting , 2013, Implementation Science.

[9]  Suzanne M. Miller,et al.  Handbook of cancer control and behavioral science : a resource for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers , 2009 .

[10]  William T Riley,et al.  Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. , 2013, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  George Shuster,et al.  Dissemination and Implementation Research Funded by the US National Institutes of Health, 2005–2012 , 2013, Nursing research and practice.

[12]  David A. Chambers,et al.  The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change , 2013, Implementation Science.

[13]  Dawn Dowding,et al.  Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences John W. Creswell, Ann Carroll Klassen, Vicki L. Plano Clark, Katherine Clegg Smith for the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research; Qualitative Methods Overview Jo Moriarty , 2013 .

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Gila Neta,et al.  A Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation. , 2015, American journal of public health.

[16]  David A Chambers,et al.  Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. , 2012, American journal of preventive medicine.

[17]  E. Proctor,et al.  Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients , 2012, Implementation Science.

[18]  Enola K Proctor,et al.  Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures , 2012, Implementation Science.

[19]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  American Journal of Epidemiology Commentary the Emergence of Translational Epidemiology: from Scientific Discovery to Population Health Impact , 2022 .

[20]  Bryan J Weiner,et al.  The U.S. training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health , 2013, Implementation Science.

[21]  J. Creswell,et al.  Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in Health Sciences: (566732013-001) , 2011 .

[22]  Stephenie R. Chaudoir,et al.  Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures , 2013, Implementation Science.

[23]  S. Woolf The meaning of translational research and why it matters. , 2008, JAMA.

[24]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Commentary: Randomised trials of surgical and non-surgical treatment: a role model for the future , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  Ross C Brownson,et al.  A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. , 2008, Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP.

[26]  C. Lenfant Shattuck lecture--clinical research to clinical practice--lost in translation? , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.