Cancer
Conditions
Keywords
Improving cancer prevention and control, academic-local public health department partnerships
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to understand how to leverage structures and processes of academic health department (AHD) partnerships to facilitate implementation of cancer related evidence-based programs and policies (EBPPs).
Detailed description
The investigators will conduct a group-randomized study (total N=28 AHD partnerships) to evaluate the effect of strategies to increase implementation of cancer control and prevention EBPPs by supporting AHD partnerships. Partnerships will be randomized 1:1 to either an active implementation arm in which they will receive tailored strategies based on prior knowledge of successful partnerships or to an existing set of resources for AHD partnerships. A mixed methods approach will be used to evaluate changes in AHD partnerships and understand how contextual factors may have impacted the AHD partnership's ability to support EBPP adoption.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALResources and guided facilitation
Participants in the intervention arm will participate in a planning period at the beginning of the intervention period to establish the goals for the partnership. The investigators will use the prioritized list of AHD partnership features developed in prior research to guide the initial planning period and then assist the partnership members to plan to implement the corresponding strategies focused on their areas of interest (e.g., developing collaborative projects, hiring faculty, staff, or students to conduct data analysis). The investigators will use telephone, email communication, and video conferencing to communicate with AHD partnerships, regularly assess progress towards goals, and adjust goals and strategies based on the progress. One additional in person visit to each AHD partnership in the intervention arm will be made in year 2 of implementation to review goals and progress and provide additional guidance and tailored support as needed.
BEHAVIORALExisting resources
Individuals will be referred to existing resources in the Learning Community.
Sponsors
Washington University School of Medicine
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Local health department practitioners who are involved in the implementation of cancer prevention and control programs within their communities and are engaged in an academic-health department partnership. * Employees in academic settings currently partnering with local health departments. These partnerships could be located anywhere within the United States.
Exclusion criteria
• Individuals under the age of 18 years old.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence-Based Interventions | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will see 5 questions about interventions related to specific public health program areas. They will be asked if their agency or institution has delivered those interventions within the last year. Possible score of 0 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome. |
| Academic Health Department Evidence-Based Interventions | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will see 5 questions about interventions related to specific public health program areas. They will be asked if their academic health department has delivered those interventions within the last year. Possible score of 0 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational Collaboration - Aligning strategy | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership... 1. Work together to identify unmet needs in the community 2. Work together to decide how to fill gaps in services and programs 3. Act toward a common goal 4. Are often in competition with one another (item reversed scored) 5. Have trouble communicating (item reversed scored) |
| Organizational Collaboration - Coordinating Current Work | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership... 1. Get a lot accomplished by working together 2. Have trusting relationships 3. Have access to resources that support collaboration between our organizations (e.g., expertise, facilities, funding) 4. Keep each other up to date about the issues we work on 5. Share information that helps public health practice work better |
| Joint Decision Making | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership. 1. Our partner organization(s) highly value the opinions of other organizations, including our own 2. Within our partnership, we brainstorm together to find solutions to address problems facing the collaboration 3. We work through differences to arrive at win-win solutions |
| Joint Operation | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Survey participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall operation score will be calculated by taking the average of the 2 characteristics. Higher scores indicate stronger partnerships. Overall, the members of our academic local health department partnership... 1. Have clearly defined roles and responsibilities 2. Coordinate tasks well |
| Reduced Autonomy | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Lower scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership. 1. This partnership hinders our organization from meeting its own missions 2. This partnership reduces our organization's independence 3. This partnership brings about conflicting expectations |
| Resource Sharing | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your academic local health department partnership. 1. Within the partnership, we combine resources (e.g., financial, personnel, physical spaces) 2. Within the partnership, we share information 3. Within the partnership, we appreciate each other's contributions |
| Perceived Collaboration Outcomes | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their academic-health department partnership on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Our academic local health department partnership… 1. increases mutual respect and trust between the organizations. 2. fosters a shared understanding of the public health needs in our community and the effective ways to address these needs. 3. increases the number of connections between individuals in each organization or with other organizations. 4. fosters equal influence and power in decision-making among partners 5. improves the health of our community. 6. improves practice-informed teaching. 7. improves research-informed practice. 8. improves students' application of theory to practice. |
| Awareness of Evidence-Based Decision Making Culture Supportive of Evidence-Based Decision Making | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of opportunities to learn about and apply evidence-based decision making on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. 1. I am provided the time to identify evidence-based programs and practices. 2. My direct supervisor recognizes the value of management practices that facilitate evidence-based decision-making 3. My agency offers employees opportunities to attend evidence-based decision-making |
| Capacity and Expectations for Evidence-based Decision Making | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of opportunities to learn about and apply evidence-based decision making on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. 1\. Top leadership in my agency encourages use of evidence-based decision-making |
| Resource Availability | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of resource availability in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. 1. Informational resources are available to my work group/division to promote the use of evidence-based decision-making 2. My agency engages health organizations in a network of partners that share resources to facilitate evidence-based decision-making 3. Stable funding is available for evidence-based decision-making |
| Evaluation Capacity | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of evaluation capacity in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. 1. My agency plans for evaluation of interventions prior to implementation. 2. My agency uses evaluation data to monitor and improve interventions. 3. My agency distributes intervention evaluation findings to other organizations that can use our findings. |
| Individual Skills | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their individual public health skills on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 6 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0). Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. 1. I am knowledgeable about evidence-based public health processes. 2. I have the skills I need to adapt evidence-based interventions from one population to another. 3. I have the ability to lead efforts in evidence-based public health in my organization. 4. I feel competent to manage change within my organization. 5. I have the skills to effectively communicate information on evidence-based interventions to leaders in my organization. 6. I have the skills to effectively communicate information on evidence-based interventions to decision make |
| Organizational Capacity for Evidence-Based Decision Making/Leadership | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of leadership in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 7 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0). Higher scores indicate a better outcome. 1. Has developed a plan to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions. 2. Has removed obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based interventions. 3. Recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of evidence-based interventions. 4. Encourages planning for sustainability of programs. 5. Perseveres through the ups and downs of implementing evidence-based interventions. 6. Supports employees \'efforts to use evidence-based interventions. 7. Reacts to critical issues regarding the implementation of evidence-based interventions by openly and effectively addressing the problem |
| Individual Skills for Health Equity | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of health equity within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. 1. I can describe how my work advances health equity. 2. I can describe the causes of health inequities. 3. I can describe health disparities among the populations in the communities I serve. 4. I can identify ways to use evidence-based decision making to advance health equity. 5. I can identify policies that will affect the social determinants of health and improve equity. |
| Leadership | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of leadership in their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." Scores for each of the 7 characteristics will be dichotomized into strongly agree/agree (1) and neither disagree or agree/disagree/strongly disagree (0). Leadership in my agency.... 1. Has developed a plan to facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions. 2. Has removed obstacles to the implementation of evidence-based interventions. 3. Recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of evidence-based interventions. 4. Encourages planning for sustainability of programs. 5. Perseveres through the ups and downs of implementing evidence-based interventions. 6. Supports employees\' efforts to use evidence-based interventions. 7. Reacts to critical issues regarding the implementation of evidence-based interventions by openly and effectively addressing the problem. |
| Organizational Climate and Culture | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of organizational climate and culture within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores mean a better outcome. |
| Organizational Characteristics Related to Health Equity | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of organizational climate and culture within their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." A summary score will be created as an average of the items within the domain. Possible scores 1 to 5. Higher scores indicate a better outcome. 1. My agency adapts approaches to populations experiencing disparities 2. My agency allows employees to dedicate time for addressing health equity (HE) 3. Programs and policies in my agency are designed to improve HE 4. My agency has systems in place to track our progress in addressing HE 5. HE is a core value within my agency 6. My agency is intentional about hiring staff members who represent communities experiencing inequities 7. Leaders in my agency prioritize HE when implementing programs and policies 8. Leaders in my agency place a high value on addressing HE 9. HE is explicitly stated as a shared priority in collaborations w/ internal agency partners |
| Environmental Support | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall environmental support score will be calculated by taking the average of the 3 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome. For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency. 1. My agency has leadership support from outside of the agency (e.g., support from the governor or other elected officials) 2. My agency and its work have strong public support (e.g., support from individuals in the community) 3. My agency collaborates with sectors outside of health (e.g., business, parks and recreation programs, architecture). |
| Funding Stability | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall funding stability score will be calculated by taking the average of the 5 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome. For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency. 1. My agency's work exists in a supportive state economic climate. 2. My agency implements policies to help ensure sustained funding. 3. My agency is funded through a variety of sources. 4. My agency has a combination of stable and flexible funding. 5. My agency has sustained funding. |
| Strategic Planning | Baseline, 2 years post baseline | Participants will be asked to rate their perceptions of their agency on a 5-point ordered scale from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly agree." An overall strategic planning score will be calculated by taking the average of the 3 characteristics. Possible score of 1 to 5. Higher score indicates a better outcome. For each statement, select the option that best indicates the extent to which you agree with the following statements about your agency. 1. My agency plans for future resource needs. 2. My agency has a long-term financial plan. 3. My agency has a sustainability plan. |
Countries
United States
Contacts
CONTACTStephanie Mazzucca-Ragan
CONTACTMary Adams
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORStephanie Mazzucca-Ragan
Washington University School of Medicine
Outcome results
None listed