PURPOSE: Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)—the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)—and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)—the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components. RESULTS: Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system. CONCLUSION: Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) Characterizing Community Health Workers on Research Teams: Results From the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities, an article from American Journal of Public Health, Vol 106 Issue 4

Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Achieving the clinical, public health, economic, and policy benefits of translational science requires the integration and application of findings across biomedical, clinical, and behavioral science and health policy, and thus, collaboration across experts in these areas. To do so, translational teams need the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to mitigate challenges and build on strengths of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Though these competencies are not innate to teams, they can be built through the implementation of effective strategies and interventions. The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has contributed robust theories and evidence of empirically-informed strategies and best practices to enhance collaboration. Yet the field lacks methodological approaches to rigorously translate those strategies into evidence-based interventions to improve collaborative translational research. Here, we apply lessons from Implementation Science and Human-Centered Design & Engineering to describe the Wisconsin Interventions in Team Science (WITS) framework, a process for translating established team science strategies into evidence-based interventions to bolster translational team effectiveness. To illustrate our use of WITS, we describe how University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research translated the existing Collaboration Planning framework into a robust, scalable, replicable intervention. We conclude with recommendations for future SciTS research to refine and test the framework.

Introduction: Transdisciplinary (TD) research and community-based participatory research (CBPR) represent promising investigative approaches to ameliorate health disparities. Public investments in team-based TD research to address multifactorial public health problems have increased over the last two decades. Similarly, recognition that community participation in research and social action is essential to promoting health equity is reflected in increased prioritization of community engagement in research and practice. Yet, models that describe and guide the combined TD and CBPR approach are lacking. Methods: We utilized a qualitative, convergent parallel case study design that included document reviews and one-on-one interviews to assess how investigators from the Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD) initiative integrated TD team science and CBPR in their work, and what they perceived as the impact of that work on health equity. Results: Twenty-five CPHHD investigators and National Institutes of Health program staff participated in a one-on-one interview. Document and interview data informed the development of an iterative conceptual model of TD CBPR comprising five domains: problem focus, contexts, collaboration and partnership, outcomes, and societal impact of TD CBPR. Conclusions: TD team science and CBPR are integrally related; combining principles of both can facilitate more efficient, equitable progress toward team outcomes, improved population health, and increased health equity. This model could assist researchers and public health practitioners in designing community-relevant, scientifically rigorous research with practical implications for improving health and quality of life among marginalized populations.