Background Despite the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine being a safe, effective cancer prevention method, its uptake is suboptimal in the United States (U.S.). Previous research has found a variety of intervention strategies (environmental and behavioral) to increase its uptake. The purpose of the study is to systematically review the literature on interventions that promote HPV vaccination from 2015 to 2020. Methods We updated a systematic review of interventions to promote HPV vaccine uptake globally. We ran keyword searches in six bibliographic databases. Target audience, design, level of intervention, components and outcomes were abstracted from the full-text articles in Excel databases. Results Of the 79 articles, most were conducted in the U.S. (72.2%) and in clinical (40.5%) or school settings (32.9%), and were directed at a single level (76.3%) of the socio-ecological model. Related to the intervention type, most were informational (n = 25, 31.6%) or patient-targeted decision support (n = 23, 29.1%). About 24% were multi-level interventions, with 16 (88.9%) combining two levels. Twenty-seven (33.8%) reported using theory in intervention development. Of those reporting HPV vaccine outcomes, post-intervention vaccine initiation ranged from 5% to 99.2%, while series completion ranged from 6.8% to 93.0%. Facilitators to implementation were the use of patient navigators and user-friendly resources, while barriers included costs, time to implement and difficulties of integrating interventions into the organizational workflow. Conclusions There is a strong need to expand the implementation of HPV-vaccine promotion interventions beyond education alone and at a single level of intervention. Development and evaluation of effective strategies and multi-level interventions may increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine among adolescents and young adults.

Background Despite the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine being a safe, effective cancer prevention method, its uptake is subomptimal in the United States (U.S.). Previous research have found a variety of intervention strategies (environmental and behavioral) in increasing its uptake. The purpose of the study is to systematically review the literature for interventions to promote HPV vaccination from 2015 to 2020. Methods We updated a systemative review of interventions to promote HPV vaccine uptake globally. We ran key word searches in six bibliographic databases. Audiences, design, level of intervention, components and outcomes were abstracted from the full-text articles in Excel databases. Results Of the 79 articles, most were conducted in the U.S. (72.2%) and in clinical (40.5%) or school settings (32.9%), and were directed a single level (76.3%). Related to the intervention type, most were informational (n = 25, 31.6%) or patient-targeted decision support (n = 23, 29.1%). About 24% were multi-level interventions, with 16 (88.9%) combining two levels. Twenty-seven (33.8%) reported the use of theory in intervention development. Of those reporting HPV vaccine outcomes, post-intervention vaccine initiation ranged from 5–99.2%, while series completion ranged from 6.8–93.0%. Facilitators to implementation were use of patient navigators and user-friendly resources, while barriers included costs, time to implement and difficulties of integrating interventions into organizational workflow. Conclusions There is a strong need to expand implementation of HPV-vaccine promotion interventions beyond education alone and at a single level of intervention. Development and evaluation of effective strategies and multi-level interventions may increase the uptake of the HPV vaccine among adolescents and young adults.

Purpose: A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. Methods: The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and 10 mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar’s program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. Results: Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. Conclusion: The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.

Purpose To improve population health, community members need capacity (i.e., knowledge, skills, and tools) to select and implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to fit the needs of their local settings. Since 2002, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has funded the national Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) to accelerate the implementation of cancer prevention and control EBIs in communities. The CPCRN has developed multiple strategies to build community members’ capacity to implement EBIs. This paper describes the history of CPCRN’s experience developing and lessons learned through the use of five capacity-building strategies: (1) mini-grant programs, (2) training, (3) online tools, (4) evidence academies, and (5) evaluation support for partners’ capacity-building initiatives. Methods We conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed publications and grey literature reports on CPCRN capacity-building activities. Guided by the Interactive Systems Framework, we developed histories, case studies, and lessons learned for each strategy. Lessons were organized into themes. Results Three themes emerged: the importance of (1) community-engagement prior to and during implementation of capacity-building strategies, (2) establishing and sustaining partnerships, and (3) co-learning at the levels of centers, networks, and beyond. Conclusion CPCRN activities have increased the ability of community organizations to compete for external funds to support implementation, increased the use of evidence in real-world settings, and promoted the broad-scale implementation of cancer control interventions across more than eight states. Lessons from this narrative review highlight the value of long-term thematic networks and provide useful guidance to other research networks and future capacity-building efforts.

Purpose A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. Methods The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and ten mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar’s program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. Results Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. Conclusion The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.