ArticleBMC health services research2023
Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinician- and Patient-Directed Communication Strategies for Patients With Cancer at High Mortality Risk: A Cluster Randomized Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Bundling Colorectal Cancer Screening Outreach with Screening for Social Risk in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Stepped-Wedge Implementation-Effectiveness Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Developing the multidisciplinary and multispecialty workforce and the systems needed to sustain high-quality care from diagnosis through long-term survivorship.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Review
- Using routinely available electronic health record data elements to develop and validate a digital divide risk score.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Impacts of pragmatic implementation science in a primary care laboratory.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Navigating the field of implementation science towards maturity: challenges and opportunities.Implementation science : IS · 2024Article
- Leveraging an implementation science partnership network to understand how Federally Qualified Health Centers operationalize and address health equity.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Using the Translational Science Benefits Model to assess the impact of the Penn Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Participatory logic modeling in a multi-site initiative to advance implementation science.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISCJournal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.
methodsIn April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.
resultsDomains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.
conclusionsThe development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.