TY - JOUR
T1 - Mixed methods evaluation of the inaugural year of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network’s (CPCRN) scholars program
AU - Escoffery, Cam
AU - Petagna, Courtney N.
AU - Wangen, Mary
AU - Flicker, Kimberly J.
AU - Noblet, Samuel B.
AU - Sakhuja, Mayank
AU - Thomson, Cynthia A.
AU - Morrato, Elaine H.
AU - Adams, Swann
AU - Leeman, Jennifer
AU - Friedman, Daniela B.
N1 - Funding Information:
We assessed the scholars’ perspectives on the workgroup opportunities in the program and their involvement in workgroups. Scholars reported a positive aspect of the workgroups was the opportunity the workgroup provided to meet others, network with people, and collaborate with other scholars on projects (n = 3). For example, one scholar described how she was able to collaborate with another scholar from a different institution on a K award (an award funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to provide support to junior faculty on their research) due to shared research interests and both their expertise complemented each other. A few scholars described workgroups as inviting and reported workgroups had an inclusive, positive culture (n = 2). Some workgroups met more frequently than others. Scholars involved with workgroups who met frequently found that helpful. For example, one scholar stated: “There is a biweekly meeting that we had with a smaller health equity group just to keep the project going. So that was very helpful.” In workgroups, scholars were able to get feedback from collaborators outside of their institution (n = 2) and they gained an understanding of the structure and inner workings of the workgroup and its projects (n = 2). One scholar stated: “And people would seek broader opinion from the group, and that is how I had an experience getting feedback from the other collaborators who are not associated with the institution. So this is again a great learning experience, especially at a student level. So it is my first time working with so many collaborators from different universities.” One major disadvantage that participants (n = 5) noted was not joining a workgroup during their time in the program, and other challenges to workgroup engagement included having trouble joining a workgroup (n = 1), workgroups conflicting with their class schedule (n = 1), and workgroups having infrequent meetings (n = 1). For example, one scholar stated: “I tried the organizational readiness one. But I think only one of the meetings actually happened. The rest of them were canceled. And the one that happened I was in an all-day board meeting. So I couldn’t attend.”
Funding Information:
This paper was published as part of a supplement sponsored by the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN), a thematic network of the Prevention Research Center Program and supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Work on this paper was funded [in part/in full] by the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Cooperative Agreement Numbers: U48DP006377, U48DP006400, U48DP006413, and U48DP006401. It was also supported by the Winship Cancer Institute’s Intervention Development, Dissemination and Implementation Shared Resource (P30CA138292). The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by CDC/HHS, or the U.S. Government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Purpose: A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. Methods: The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and ten mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar’s program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. Results: Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. Conclusion: The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.
AB - Purpose: A diverse workforce trained in dissemination & implementation (D&I) science is critical for improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer-related health disparities. This study aims to describe and evaluate impact of the Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) Scholars Program in preparing scholars for collaborative careers in cancer control and implementation research and practice, and offers evaluation-driven recommendations for program improvements. Methods: The CPCRN Scholars Workgroup conducted a sequential, mixed methods evaluation. We collected baseline and follow-up surveys and invited all 20 scholars and ten mentors to participate in an exit interview. We assessed the experience with the Scholar’s program, ratings of D&I competences, progress on their project, feedback about the curriculum, and understanding of implementation science. Results: Over 86% partially or fully completed their project within 9 months; 78% of scholars engaged with a CPCRN workgroup. Scholars rated the following program components as valuable: the Putting Public Health Evidence in Action (PPHEIA) training (88.9%), D&I training modules (83.3%), and webinars (kickoff webinar-88.9% and selecting theories/models-88.9%). There was an increase in D&I competencies from baseline to posttest, with the greatest in community engagement topics. About 78% reported that they were satisfied with format of the activities and increased confidence in ability to discuss D&I concepts. From the qualitative interviews, the benefit of the program was becoming more knowledgeable about D&I research and networking. Conclusion: The inaugural year of the program yielded positive results, particularly related to increasing knowledge about D&I science and cancer control. This program builds the capacity of students, researchers and practitioners in D&I science.
KW - Cancer disparities
KW - Capacity-building
KW - Dissemination and implementation science
KW - Evaluation
KW - Research network
KW - Training
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153702892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85153702892&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10552-023-01702-1
DO - 10.1007/s10552-023-01702-1
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85153702892
SN - 0957-5243
JO - Cancer Causes and Control
JF - Cancer Causes and Control
ER -