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

Abstract

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.

Screening, evaluation, and management of cancer‐related fatigue: Ready for implementation to practice?

“…A decade of grant funding by the NCI has supported implementation science in cancer prevention and control. Studies positioned from T2 to T4 on the translational continuum address issues of each intervention's feasibility, effectiveness, acceptability, and cost …”

Mapping the growing discipline of dissemination and implementation science in health

“…Mapping scientific fields has become increasingly accessible given advances in computing, information processing, and technology, and provide critical data on how a field emerges, develops[19], flourishes, and/or disbands over time. These activities[20] are accomplished through a variety of methods, including (but not limited to) summaries of grant-funded research (e.g., portfolio analysis of cancer-related D&I research grants[21]; portfolio analysis of NIH-wide D&I research grants[22]; review of policy-related D&I grants[23]) systematic reviews of key components of the field (e.g., measurement instruments[24, 25] and measurement repositories[26]) and analyses of collaboration networks [19, 27]. …”

The Woes of Implementation Practice: Getting Caught by the “Program of the Month”

“…Some researchers suggest the importance of goals and measurement (Neta et al 2015), while others emphasize timely and credible communication (Reichers et al 1997) and leadership commitment (Armenakis and Harris 2009;O'Hagan and Persaud 2009). Darrouzet et al (2010: 62) stress the value of "participatory ethnography" in which staff serve as "paraethnographers" working with the professional ethnographers.…”