Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810066›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2023

Creating research-ready partnerships: the initial development of seven implementation laboratories to advance cancer control.

Gina R Kruse, Erica Hale, Justin E Bekelman, Jennifer E DeVoe, Rachel Gold, Peggy A Hannon, Thomas K Houston, Aimee S James, Ashley Johnson, Lisa M Klesges and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Impacts of pragmatic implementation science in a primary care laboratory.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Gina R KruseDivision of General Internal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. gkruse@mgh.harvard.edu.
Erica HaleDepartment of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Justin E BekelmanPenn Center for Cancer Care Innovation at the Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jennifer E DeVoeDepartment of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Rachel GoldKaiser Permanente NW Center for Health Research, Portland, OR, USA.
Peggy A HannonDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Thomas K HoustonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Aimee S JamesWashington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ashley JohnsonDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lisa M KlesgesWashington University in St Louis, School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Andrea L NederveldDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
University of Washington · USWashington University in St. Louis · USAtrium Health Wake Forest Baptist · USKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

The Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control Equity - Research ProgramP50CA244433 · NCI · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI EMMONS, KAREN M. · 2019 to 2023
$12.5M
Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
Research ProgramP50CA244289 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DEVOE, JENNIFER E, HUGUET, NATHALIE · 2019 to 2023
$7.6M
Research ProgramP50CA244690 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHULMAN, LAWRENCE N. · 2020 to 2024
$4.9M
Pragmatic Implementation Science Approaches to Assess and Enhance Value of Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Primary CareP50CA244688 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control: OPTICC - Research Program CoreP50CA244432 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LEWIS, CARA CHARISSA · 2019 to 2023
$4.6M
iDAPT: Implementation and Informatics - Developing Adaptable Processes and Technologies for Cancer Control P50CA244693 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HOUSTON, THOMAS K · 2019 to 2023
$4.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244289NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244431NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244432NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244433NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244688NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244690NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244693
6 · The paper itself

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

LaboratoriesNeoplasmsCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareHumansCancer controlCommunity-engaged researchImplementation sciencePartnership-building

Identifiers

PMID36810066
PMCPMC9942028
OpenAlexW4321457758

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.