To address the vast gap between current knowledge and practice in the area of dissemination and implementation research, we address terminology, provide examples of successful applications of this research, discuss key sources of support, and highlight directions and opportunities for future advances. There is a need for research testing approaches to scaling up and sustaining effective interventions, and we propose that further advances in the field will be achieved by focusing dissemination and implementation research on 5 core values: rigor and relevance, efficiency, collaboration, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge.

BackgroundThe science of dissemination and implementation (D&I) is advancing the knowledge base for how best to integrate evidence-based interventions within clinical and community settings and how to recast the nature or conduct of the research itself to make it more relevant and actionable in those settings. While the field is growing, there are only a few training programs for D&I research; this is an important avenue to help build the field’s capacity. To improve the United States’ capacity for D&I research, the National Institutes of Health and Veterans Health Administration collaborated to develop a five-day training institute for postdoctoral level applicants aspiring to advance this science.MethodsWe describe the background, goals, structure, curriculum, application process, trainee evaluation, and future plans for the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH).ResultsThe TIDIRH used a five-day residential immersion to maximize opportunities for trainees and faculty to interact. The train-the-trainer-like approach was intended to equip participants with materials that they could readily take back to their home institutions to increase interest and further investment in D&I. The TIDIRH curriculum included a balance of structured large group discussions and interactive small group sessions.Thirty-five of 266 applicants for the first annual training institute were accepted from a variety of disciplines, including psychology (12 trainees); medicine (6 trainees); epidemiology (5 trainees); health behavior/health education (4 trainees); and 1 trainee each from education & human development, health policy and management, health services research, public health studies, public policy and social work, with a maximum of two individuals from any one institution. The institute was rated as very helpful by attendees, and by six months after the institute, a follow-up survey (97% return rate) revealed that 72% had initiated a new grant proposal in D&I research; 28% had received funding, and 77% had used skills from TIDIRH to influence their peers from different disciplines about D&I research through building local research networks, organizing formal presentations and symposia, teaching and by leading interdisciplinary teams to conduct D&I research.ConclusionsThe initial TIDIRH training was judged successful by trainee evaluation at the conclusion of the week’s training and six-month follow-up, and plans are to continue and possibly expand the TIDIRH in coming years. Strengths are seen as the residential format, quality of the faculty and their flexibility in adjusting content to meet trainee needs, and the highlighting of concrete D&I examples by the local host institution, which rotates annually. Lessons learned and plans for future TIDIRH trainings are summarized.

A key question in moving comprehensive cancer control (CCC) plans into action is, to what extent should the knowledge gained from investments in cancer prevention and control research influence the actions taken by states, tribes, and territories during implementation? Underlying this 'should' is the assumption that evidence-based approaches (i.e., a public health or clinical intervention or policy that has resulted in improved outcomes when scientifically tested), when implemented in a real-world setting, will increase the likelihood of improved outcomes. This article elucidates the barriers and opportunities for integrating science with practice across the cancer control continuum. However, given the scope of CCC and the substantial investment in generating new knowledge through science, it is difficult for any one agency, on its own, to make a sufficient investment to ensure new knowledge is translated and implemented at a national, state, or local level. Thus, if greater demand for evidence-based interventions and increased resources for adopting them are going to support the dissemination initiatives described herein, new interagency partnerships must be developed to ensure that sufficient means are dedicated to integrating science with service. Furthermore, for these collaborations to increase both in size and in frequency, agency leaders must clearly articulate their support for these collaborative initiatives and explicitly recognize those collaborative efforts that are successful. In this way, the whole (in this context, comprehensive cancer control) can become greater than the sum of its parts.

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.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot initiative seeks to accelerate cancer research for the USA. One of the scientific priorities identified by the Moonshot’s Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) of scientific experts was the implementation of evidence-based approaches. In September 2019, the NCI launched the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3 or “Centers”) initiative to advance this Moonshot priority. The vision of the ISC3 is to promote the development of research centers to build capacity and research in high-priority areas of cancer control implementation science (e.g., scale-up and spread, sustainability and adaptation, and precision implementation), build implementation laboratories within community and clinical settings, improve the state of measurement and methods, and improve the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based cancer control interventions. This paper highlights the research agenda, vision, and strategic direction for these Centers and encourages transdisciplinary scientists to learn more about opportunities to collaborate with these Centers.

BackgroundIn 2011, the National Institute of Health (NIH) initiated the Training in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) program. Over its first 5 years, TIDIRH provided an in-person, week-long training to 197 investigators who were new to the dissemination and implementation (D&I) field. This paper evaluates the long-term impact of TIDIRH on trainees’ use of D&I methods, collaborations, and research funding.MethodsTrainees were selected to participate through a competitive process. We compared the 197 trainees to 125 unselected applicants (UAs) whose application score was within one standard deviation of the mean for all trainees’ scores for the same application year. A portfolio analysis examined electronic applications for NIH peer-reviewed funding submitted by trainees and UAs between 2011 and 2019. A survey of trainees and UAs was conducted in 2016, as was a faculty survey among the 87 individuals who served as TIDIRH instructors.ResultsA major goal of TIDIRH was to build the field, at least in part through networking and collaboration. Thirty-eight percent of trainees indicated they had extensive contact with faculty following the training, and an additional 38% indicated they had at least limited contact. Twenty-four percent of trainees had extensive collaboration with other fellows post-TIDIRH, and 43% had at least limited contact. Collaborative activities included the full range of academic activities, including manuscript development, grant writing, and consultation/collaboration on research studies.The portfolio analysis combining grant mechanisms showed that overall, TIDIRH trainees submitted more peer-reviewed NIH grants per person than UA and had significantly better funding outcomes (25% vs 19% funded, respectively). The greatest difference was for large research project, program/center, and cooperative agreement grants mechanisms.ConclusionsOverall, this evaluation found that TIDIRH is achieving its three primary goals: (1) building a pipeline of D&I investigators, (2) creating a network of scholars to build the field, and (3) improving funding outcomes for D&I grants.

Evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are not broadly implemented, despite widespread availability of programs, policies, and guidelines. Systematic processes for integrating EBIs with community preference remain challenging for cancer control and prevention, as well as other areas. The Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T. (P.L.A.N.E.T) Web portal provides a platform to access data, EBIs, and resources to foster local partnerships and assist public health researchers and practitioners design, implement, and evaluate evidence-based cancer control programs. This article summarizes the evolution of P.L.A.N.E.T. and describes effective and innovative Web 2.0 strategies to increase Web visits, create more interactive platforms for researchers and practitioners to integrate evidence-based resources, community preferences, and the complex context in which programs and policies are implemented. Lessons learned could benefit public health settings and reach low-income, high-risk communities. Researchers, community practitioners, and government partnerships should continue to develop and test innovative ways to address pressing issues in cancer control, health disparities, and health delivery.

How can a community of practice help further the practical application of cancer control research? In 2011, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched an online community of practice, Research to Reality (R2R). R2R aims to infuse evidence-based strategies into communities by engaging researchers and practitioners in a joint approach to research dissemination. To measure community growth and engagement, NCI measures data across 3 program domains: content, interaction, and activity. NCI uses Web analytics, usability testing, and content analyses to manage and evaluate R2R. As of December 2013, R2R had more than 1,700 registered members. More than 500 researchers and practitioners register for the monthly cyber-seminars, and 40% return each month. R2R hosts more than 15,500 page views and 5,000 site visits in an average month. This article describes the process of convening this online community and quantifies our experiences to date.