A Partnership of Two U.S. Research Networks to Improve Public Health

Abstract

Strategic collaborations are essential in moving public health research and practice forward1, particularly in light of escalating fiscal and environmental challenges facing the public health community. This commentary provides background and context for an emerging partnership between two national networks, Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) and Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs), to impact public health practice. Supported by CDC, PRCs are celebrating over 25 years of transdisciplinary applied prevention research grounded in community and stakeholder engagement. Public Health PBRNs, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, conduct innovative public health services and systems research with public health agencies and community partners to improve public health decision-making. By utilizing each of the networks’ respective strengths and resources, collaborative ventures between PRCs and Public Health PBRNs can enhance the translation of applied prevention research to evidence-based practice and empirically investigate novel public health practices developed in the field. Three current PRC-Public Health PBRNs projects are highlighted and future research directions are discussed. Improving the interconnectedness of prevention research and public health practice is essential to improve the health of the Nation.

Designing for Dissemination: Lessons in Message Design From “1-2-3 Pap”

“…RCPC researchers then conducted formative work exploring knowledge, attitudes, facilitators, and barriers to both Pap testing and HPV vaccination among local healthcare providers and young women living in Appalachian Kentucky (Cohen & Head, 2013; Head & Cohen, 2012; Head, Vanderpool, & Mills, 2013). On the basis of this formative research and community engagement, the RCPC designed the “1-2-3 Pap” video-based cervical cancer prevention intervention, which aimed to improve HPV vaccination uptake and adherence rates and guideline-appropriate Pap testing among young adult women aged 18 to 26 years living in Appalachian Kentucky (Cohen et al, 2013; Vanderpool, Cohen et al, 2013). …”

“…Participants in the intervention were recruited into the study in local health departments, clinics, and community locations such as colleges, outdoor festivals, and local retail stores (Cohen et al, 2013). Medically and age-eligible young women first were provided with dose 1 of the HPV vaccine series free of charge ( N = 344) and then asked to participate in a research study wherein enrolled participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention arm ( n = 178) or the usual-care comparison arm ( n = 166; Vanderpool et al, 2013). Women assigned to the intervention arm watched the 13-minute “1-2-3 Pap” video, which consisted of messages about the importance of HPV vaccination and Pap testing.…”

“…Women in both the intervention and comparison arms received follow-up calls from the local RCPC research nurses to remind them about completing doses 2 and 3 of the HPV vaccine series, the primary outcome of the research study. Findings indicated that the intervention was effective in improving vaccine adherence, as nearly half of the women (43.3%) randomized to the intervention arm completed the 3-dose series and only 31.9% of women assigned to the usual-care comparison group completed the series (percent relative difference of 35.7% [ p = .03]; Vanderpool, Cohen et al, 2013). In adjusted analysis, women assigned to the “1-2-3 Pap” intervention were almost 2.5 times more likely than women in the usual-care group to complete the HPV vaccine series ( p = .001; Vanderpool, Cohen et al, 2013).…”

“…Findings indicated that the intervention was effective in improving vaccine adherence, as nearly half of the women (43.3%) randomized to the intervention arm completed the 3-dose series and only 31.9% of women assigned to the usual-care comparison group completed the series (percent relative difference of 35.7% [ p = .03]; Vanderpool, Cohen et al, 2013). In adjusted analysis, women assigned to the “1-2-3 Pap” intervention were almost 2.5 times more likely than women in the usual-care group to complete the HPV vaccine series ( p = .001; Vanderpool, Cohen et al, 2013). For a more thorough description of the “1-2-3 Pap” efficacy study, see Cohen et al (2013) and Vanderpool, Cohen et al (2013).…”

Adoption of Evidence-Based Interventions in Local Health Departments

“…In 2013, the NC PH-PBRN partnered with the University of Kentucky Rural Cancer Prevention Center to study adoption of an evidence-based program to increase completion of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine series in North Carolina LHDs. 21 HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the U.S. Vaccination against HPV is a primary prevention strategy to protect women against cervical cancer. 22 However, only 34.5% of women aged 19-26 years reported receipt of one or more dose of the three-dose vaccine series in 2012.…”