BackgroundNumerous agencies are providing training, technical assistance, and other support to build community-based practitioners’ capacity to adopt and implement evidence-based prevention interventions. Yet, little is known about how best to design capacity-building interventions to optimize their effectiveness. Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol.50:445–59, 2102) proposed the Evidence-Based System of Innovation Support (EBSIS) as a framework to guide research and thereby strengthen the evidence base for building practitioners’ capacity. The purpose of this review was to contribute to further development of the EBSIS by systematically reviewing empirical studies of capacity-building interventions to identify (1) the range of strategies used, (2) variations in the way they were structured, and (3) evidence for their effectiveness at increasing practitioners’ capacity to use evidence-based prevention interventions.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for English-language articles reporting findings of empirical studies of capacity-building interventions that were published between January 2000 and January 2014 and were intended to increase use of evidence-based prevention interventions in non-clinical settings. To maximize review data, studies were not excluded a priori based on design or methodological quality. Using the EBSIS as a guide, two researchers independently extracted data from included studies. Vote counting and meta-summary methods were used to summarize findings.ResultsThe review included 42 publications reporting findings from 29 studies. In addition to confirming the strategies and structures described in the EBSIS, the review identified two new strategies and two variations in structure. Capacity-building interventions were found to be effective at increasing practitioners’ adoption (n = 10 of 12 studies) and implementation (n = 9 of 10 studies) of evidence-based interventions. Findings were mixed for interventions’ effects on practitioners’ capacity or intervention planning behaviors. Both the type and structure of capacity-building strategies may have influenced effectiveness. The review also identified contextual factors that may require variations in the ways capacity-building interventions are designed.ConclusionsBased on review findings, refinements are suggested to the EBSIS. The refined framework moves the field towards a more comprehensive and standardized approach to conceptualizing the types and structures of capacity-building strategies. This standardization will assist with synthesizing findings across studies and guide capacity-building practice and research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0272-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Results suggest that CCNC enrollment is associated with guideline-concordant follow-up care for Medicaid-insured survivors. Given the growing population of cancer survivors and increased emphasis on primary care medical homes, future studies should explore what factors are associated with medical home participation and whether similar findings are observed with extended follow-up.

Purpose Hormone receptor positive (HR+) cancers account for most breast cancer diagnoses and deaths. Among survivors with HR+ breast cancers, endocrine therapy (ET) reduces 5-year risk of recurrence by up to 40%. Observational studies in Medicare and privately-insured survivors suggest under-utilization of ET. We sought to characterize ET use in a low-income Medicaid-insured population in North Carolina. Methods Medicaid claims data were matched to state cancer registry records for survivors ages 18–64 diagnosed with stage 0-II HR+ breast cancer from 2003–2007, eligible for ET, and enrolled in Medicaid for at least 12 of 15 months post-diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic regression to model receipt of any ET medication during 15-months post-diagnosis controlling for age, race, tumor characteristics, receipt of other treatments, co-morbidity, residence, reason for Medicaid eligibility, involvement in the Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Program (BCCCP), and diagnosis year. Results Of 222 women meeting inclusion criteria, only 50% filled a prescription for ET. Involvement in BCCCP and earlier year of diagnoses were associated with significantly higher odds of initiating guideline-recommended ET (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] for BCCCP: 3.76, 95%CI: 1.67–8.48; AOR for 2004 relative to 2007: 2.80, 95%CI: 1.03–7.62; AOR for 2005 relative to 2007: 2.11, 95%CI: 0.92–4.85). Conclusions Results suggest substantial under-utilization of ET in this population. Interventions are needed to improve timely receipt of ET and to better support survivors taking ET. Implications of cancer survivors Low-income survivors should be counseled on the importance of ET and offered support services to promote initiation and long-term adherence.

The Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) is a thematic network dedicated to accelerating the adoption of evidence-based cancer prevention and control practices in communities by advancing dissemination and implementation science. Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, CPCRN has operated at two levels: Each participating Network Center conducts research projects with primarily local partners as well as multicenter collaborative research projects with state and national partners. Through multicenter collaboration, thematic networks leverage the expertise, resources, and partnerships of participating centers to conduct research projects collectively that might not be feasible individually. Although multicenter collaboration often is advocated, it is challenging to promote and assess. Using bibliometric network analysis and other graphical methods, this paper describes CPCRN’s multicenter publication progression from 2004 to 2014. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in 2014 identified 249 peer-reviewed CPCRN publications involving two or more centers out of 6,534 total. The research and public health impact of these multicenter collaborative projects initiated by CPCRN during that 10-year period were then examined. CPCRN established numerous workgroups around topics such as: 2-1-1, training and technical assistance, colorectal cancer control, federally qualified health centers, cancer survivorship, and human papillomavirus. The paper discusses the challenges that arise in promoting multicenter collaboration and the strategies that CPCRN uses to address those challenges. The lessons learned should broadly interest those seeking to promote multisite collaboration to address public health problems, such as cancer prevention and control.

Despite a growing body of evidence concerning effective approaches to increasing breast cancer screening, the gap between research and practice continues. The North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program (NC-BCSP) is an example of an evidence-based intervention that uses trained lay health advisors (LHA) to promote breast cancer screening. Partnerships that link academic researchers knowledgeable about specific evidence-based programs with community-based practitioners offer a model for increasing their use. This article describes a partnership between CrossWorks, Inc., a community-based organization, and the UNC-CH Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in planning and implementing an evidence-based program for promoting breast cancer screening among older African American women in rural eastern North Carolina communities. We used in-depth interviews to explore the relationship of the partnership to the activities that were undertaken to launch the evidence-based program.

No abstract

Innovative models to facilitate more rapid uptake of research findings into practice are urgently needed. Community members who engage in research can accelerate this process by acting as adoption agents. We implemented an Evidence Academy conference model bringing together researchers, health professionals, advocates, and policy makers across North Carolina to discuss high-impact, life-saving study results. The overall goal is to develop dissemination and implementation strategies for translating evidence into practice and policy. Each one-day, single-theme, regional meeting focuses on a leading community-identified health priority. The model capitalizes on the power of diverse local networks to encourage broad, common awareness of new research findings. Furthermore, it emphasizes critical reflection and active group discussion on how to incorporate new evidence within and across organizations, health care systems, and communities. During the concluding session, participants are asked to articulate action plans relevant to their individual interests, work setting, or area of expertise.