Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC): protocol for an implementation science center

Lewis, Cara C.; Hannon, Peggy A.; Klasnja, Predrag; Baldwin, Laura‐Mae; Hawkes, Rene; Blackmer, Janell; Johnson, Ashley N.

doi:10.1186/s43058-021-00117-w

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Determining how to rapidly prioritize determinants is also important. For example, one approach being tested involves evaluating the ubiquity, chronicity, and criticality of implementation determinants to prioritize which should be explicitly addressed [ 116 ].…”

Section: Main Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Implementation science is at a sufficiently advanced stage that it is appropriate for the field to reflect on progress thus far in achieving its vision, with a goal of charting a path forward. In this debate, we offer such reflections and report on potential threats that might stymie progress, as well as opportunities to enhance the success and impact of the field, from the perspective of a group of US-based researchers. Main body Ten mid-career extramurally funded US-based researchers completed a “pre-mortem” or a group brainstorming exercise that leverages prospective hindsight to imagine that an event has already occurred and to generate an explanation for it — to reduce the likelihood of a poor outcome. We came to consensus on six key themes related to threats and opportunities for the field: (1) insufficient impact, (2) too much emphasis on being a “legitimate science,” (3) re-creation of the evidence-to-practice gap, (4) difficulty balancing accessibility and field coherence, (5) inability to align timelines and priorities with partners, and (6) overly complex implementation strategies and approaches. Conclusion We submit this debate piece to generate further discussion with other implementation partners as our field continues to develop and evolve. We hope the key opportunities identified will enhance the future of implementation research in the USA and spark discussion across international groups. We will continue to learn with humility about how best to implement with the goal of achieving equitable population health impact at scale.

show abstract

Section: Main Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although future work is needed to validate this method, the process guides the engagement of the community throughout the process and considers the possibility of tailoring (differentiating) specific strategies depending on the unique needs of subgroups within the populations of interest. Future research is needed to integrate an explicit attention to the culture, context, history, and needs of the communities, when prioritizing the selection and tailoring of strategies that can facilitate the effective implementation and sustainment of EBIs among historically and systematically underserved populations, supported in the projects designed at optimizing strategies [ 102 ], in the recently funded Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control [ 103 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

Adsul

Chambers

Brandt

et al. 2022

Implement Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The past decade of research has seen theoretical and methodological advances in both implementation science and health equity research, opening a window of opportunity for facilitating and accelerating cross-disciplinary exchanges across these fields that have largely operated in siloes. In 2019 and 2020, the National Cancer Institute’s Consortium for Cancer Implementation Science convened an action group focused on ‘health equity and context’ to identify opportunities to advance implementation science. In this paper, we present a narrative review and synthesis of the relevant literature at the intersection of health equity and implementation science, highlight identified opportunities (i.e., public goods) by the action group for advancing implementation science in cancer prevention and control, and integrate the two by providing key recommendations for future directions. Discussion In the review and synthesis of the literature, we highlight recent advances in implementation science, relevant to promoting health equity (e.g., theories/models/frameworks, adaptations, implementation strategies, study designs, implementation determinants, and outcomes). We acknowledge the contributions from the broader field of health equity research and discuss opportunities for integration and synergy with implementation science, which include (1) articulating an explicit focus on health equity for conducting and reviewing implementation science; (2) promoting an explicit focus on health equity in the theories, models, and frameworks guiding implementation science; and (3) identifying methods for understanding and documenting influences on the context of implementation that incorporate a focus on equity. Summary To advance the science of implementation with a focus on health equity, we reflect on the essential groundwork needed to promote bi-directional learning between the fields of implementation science and health equity research and recommend (1) building capacity among researchers and research institutions for health equity-focused and community-engaged implementation science; (2) incorporating health equity considerations across all key implementation focus areas (e.g., adaptations, implementation strategies, study design, determinants, and outcomes); and (3) continuing a focus on transdisciplinary opportunities in health equity research and implementation science. We believe that these recommendations can help advance implementation science by incorporating an explicit focus on health equity in the context of cancer prevention and control and beyond.

show abstract

“…IS labs offer greater opportunities to understand, through science, how and why implementation works well or not and how to improve innovation uptake, scale, spread and sustainability through a collaborative approach. Ultimately, IS labs offer a potential mechanism to achieve the greatest impact with healthcare improvement efforts on patients, providers, care, and health systems [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. Implementation science and practice integration focused on foundational assets and infrastructure (e.g., data systems, common measures, and networks) that can enable learning in real-time and continuous improvement of policies and programs [ 39 , 40 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

Flynn

Brooks

Thomson

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implementation science (IS) has emerged as an integral component for evidence-based whole system improvement. IS studies the best methods to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve the quality and effectiveness of health service delivery and patient care. IS laboratories (IS labs) are one mechanism to integrate implementation science as an evidence-based approach to whole system improvement and to support a learning health system. This paper aims to examine if IS labs are a suitable approach to whole system improvement. We retrospectively analyzed an existing IS lab (Alberta, Canada’s Implementation Science Collaborative) to assess the potential of IS labs to perform as a whole system approach to improvement and to identify key activities and considerations for designing IS labs specifically to support learning health systems. Results from our evaluation show the extent to which IS labs support learning health systems through enabling infrastructures for system-wide improvement and research.

show abstract

Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC): protocol for an implementation science center

Cited by 17 publications

References 62 publications

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

Promises and pitfalls in implementation science from the perspective of US-based researchers: learning from a pre-mortem

Grounding implementation science in health equity for cancer prevention and control

An Implementation Science Laboratory as One Approach to Whole System Improvement: A Canadian Healthcare Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About