ArticleImplementation science : IS2018
Toward optimal implementation of cancer prevention and control programs in public health: a study protocol on mis-implementation.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation science: why should we care?Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Understanding Misimplementation in U.S. State Health Departments: An Agent-Based Model.American journal of preventive medicine · 2023Article
- Leading the way: competencies of leadership to prevent mis-implementation of public health programs.Health education research · 2022Article
- The power of partnerships: state public health department multisector collaborations in major chronic disease programme areas in the United States.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- "It's good to feel like you're doing something": a qualitative study examining state health department employees' views on why ineffective programs continue to be implemented in the USA.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Program adaptation by health departments.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- A scoping review of de-implementation frameworks and models.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Patterns and correlates of mis-implementation in state chronic disease public health practice in the United States.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Rugged landscapes: complexity and implementation science.Implementation science : IS · 2020Article
- Perspectives on program mis-implementation among U.S. local public health departments.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Going beyond the individual: how state-level characteristics relate to HPV vaccine rates in the United States.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Agent-Based Modeling for Implementation Research: An Application to Tobacco Smoking Cessation for Persons with Serious Mental Illness.Implementation research and practiceArticle
- The Association Between Evidence-Based Decision Making and Accreditation of State Health Departments.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMuch of the cancer burden in the USA is preventable, through application of existing knowledge. State-level funders and public health practitioners are in ideal positions to affect programs and policies related to cancer control. Mis-implementation refers to ending effective programs and policies prematurely or continuing ineffective ones. Greater attention to mis-implementation should lead to use of effective interventions and more efficient expenditure of resources, which in the long term, will lead to more positive cancer outcomes.
methodsThis is a three-phase study that takes a comprehensive approach, leading to the elucidation of tactics for addressing mis-implementation. Phase 1: We assess the extent to which mis-implementation is occurring among state cancer control programs in public health. This initial phase will involve a survey of 800 practitioners representing all states. The programs represented will span the full continuum of cancer control, from primary prevention to survivorship. Phase 2: Using data from phase 1 to identify organizations in which mis-implementation is particularly high or low, the team will conduct eight comparative case studies to get a richer understanding of mis-implementation and to understand contextual differences. These case studies will highlight lessons learned about mis-implementation and identify hypothesized drivers. Phase 3: Agent-based modeling will be used to identify dynamic interactions between individual capacity, organizational capacity, use of evidence, funding, and external factors driving mis-implementation. The team will then translate and disseminate findings from phases 1 to 3 to practitioners and practice-related stakeholders to support the reduction of mis-implementation. DISCUSSION: This study is innovative and significant because it will (1) be the first to refine and further develop reliable and valid measures of mis-implementation of public health programs; (2) bring together a strong, transdisciplinary team with significant expertise in practice-based research; (3) use agent-based modeling to address cancer control implementation; and (4) use a participatory, evidence-based, stakeholder-driven approach that will identify key leverage points for addressing mis-implementation among state public health programs. This research is expected to provide replicable computational simulation models that can identify leverage points and public health system dynamics to reduce mis-implementation in cancer control and may be of interest to other health areas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.