The accompanying commentary by Hursting and Chambers of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) provides a welcome perspective to the burgeoning field of Implementation Science (IS) as it relates to cancer prevention and control. In the commentary, the authors highlight current and established actions by the NCI in advancing IS, providing perspective on the value of practitioner engagement in IS activities supported by NCI. The NCI's IS work has been valuable in contributing to and strongly advancing critical tools and approaches to IS in practical utilization by public health practitioners. This includes such tools as the Research-Tested Intervention Programs (RTIPs) site (https://rtips.cancer.gov), the now defunct Cancer Control P.L.A.N.E.T., advancing research-practice activities in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers Program through the establishment of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN), and the recent publication of the excellent resource, "Advancing the Science of Implementation Across the Cancer Continuum, Implementation Science at a Glance." The engagement of and linkages with practitioners in this work are clearly a welcome focus, as pointed out in a recent commentary, "In Appreciation of Amplifying Practitioner Perspectives to Strengthen Implementation Science, with caveats," as published in the e-newsletter Implementation Science News, June 2019 (https://news.consortiumforis.org/2019/06/24/in-appreciation-of-amplifying-practi) and in the JPHMP Direct podcast, "Implementation Science in Public Health" by the authors of this editorial, posted October 8, 2019 (https://jphmpdirect.com/2019/10/08/implementation-science-podcast-with-randy-sch). As noted in both, advances in IS needs more robust practitioner engagement, in combination with strong community engagement.
As Hursting and Chambers state that it is NCI's intention "to improve integration of practitioners," the other current opportunities cited in the commentary, the recent funding of the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) or Centers, and the formation of the Implementation Sciences Consortium in Cancer (ISCC) or the Consortium are specific opportunities that require intentional action to ensure practitioner inclusion. In a previous article on NCI's IS work, Oh et al1 detail the establishment of the Centers and the Consortium. They indicate a number of goals for the Centers including "develop and execute innovative pilot projects to deliver evidence on optimal strategies for adopting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based care," and they also cite "disseminate lessons to NIH grantees, service systems, practitioners, and other key stakeholders in the field." A welcome focus is the utilization of IS strategies to advance health equities. However, the focus should not simply be "dissemination to..." but should also be "engagement with..." in all aspects of the development of these Centers as strong resources in advancing public health practice. The Centers are an excellent opportunity to advance practitioner engagement in IS and should seek this engagement from the outset. In addition, as Hursting and Chambers noted, the newly developed Consortium (ISCC) also provides opportunity for practitioner engagement, but the initial meeting was attended predominantly by researchers and academics. As future ISCC meetings are scheduled, outreach efforts should be undertaken to increase the number and diversity of stakeholders from the practice community.
The focus as highlighted in the commentary is welcome, and the time is prime to actualize true integration of the practitioner, researcher, and community in advancing IS in public health. We look forward to continued dialogue on this and invite submissions from the funded Centers and updates on how the Centers and the ISCC are contributing to this goal and from others engaged in this work.
Reference