Prioritizing Implementation Determinants in Cancer Control: A Methodological Guide for Researchers and Scientists

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive methodological framework for researchers and drug development professionals to systematically identify, analyze, and prioritize implementation determinants in cancer control. It bridges critical gaps between evidence-based intervention development and real-world application by exploring foundational theories, practical assessment tools, advanced optimization techniques, and validation strategies. The content synthesizes current implementation science research, including insights from national cancer control plans and NCI-funded studies, to offer actionable guidance for enhancing the implementation and scale-up of cancer prevention, screening, and treatment innovations across diverse healthcare settings and populations.

Understanding the Landscape: Core Concepts and Determinant Frameworks in Cancer Control

In the field of implementation science, determinants are the barriers and facilitators that influence the successful integration of evidence-based interventions into routine practice [1]. For cancer control researchers and drug development professionals, understanding these determinants is crucial for bridging the gap between scientific discovery and real-world application. The underdeveloped methods for identifying and prioritizing determinants represent a critical barrier to optimized implementation in cancer control [2] [3]. This technical support guide provides structured methodologies and resources to help researchers systematically address these challenges, with a specific focus on cancer control research contexts where evidence-based interventions could reduce cervical cancer deaths by 90%, colorectal cancer deaths by 70%, and lung cancer deaths by 95% if widely and effectively implemented [2].

Core Concepts and Definitions

Key Terminology Table

Term	Definition	Relevance to Implementation
Determinant	Barriers or facilitators of implementing a new clinical practice [2]	Foundational concept for understanding implementation success
Barrier	Factors that hinder implementation efforts	Identified through systematic assessment to inform strategy selection
Facilitator	Factors that promote implementation efforts	Leveraged to enhance implementation effectiveness
Contextual Factor	Circumstances in environments where people live, work, and receive care [4]	Shapes how interventions are adopted and sustained
Mechanism	Basis for an implementation strategy's effect—processes responsible for change [2]	Explains why strategies work
Implementation Outcome	Outcome that implementation processes intend to achieve [2]	Measures of implementation success

Technical Support: Troubleshooting Determinant Identification

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Our team has identified dozens of potential implementation determinants. How do we prioritize which ones to address with limited resources?

A: This common challenge stems from underdeveloped methods for determinant prioritization [2]. Use the following evidence-based protocol:

• Apply the Damschroder & Lowery rating system to assess magnitude and valence (-2 to +2 scale) [1]
• Focus on determinants that strongly distinguish between high and low implementation effectiveness sites
• Prioritize the eight key determinants identified through systematic review (see Table 2)
• Consider feasibility of addressing each determinant alongside its potential impact

Q: What are the most impactful determinants we should focus on in cancer control implementation?

A: Systematic research has identified eight key determinants that most commonly have the largest impact on implementation processes [1]:

• Leadership Engagement
• Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders
• Compatibility
• Available Resources
• External Change Agents
• Champions
• Relative Advantage
• Key Stakeholders

Q: How can we improve our methods for identifying determinants beyond standard interviews and surveys?

A: Standard self-report methods are subject to limitations including low recognition, low saliency, and low disclosure [2]. Enhance your approach by:

• Incorporating observational methods to detect EBI- or setting-specific determinants
• Using implementation laboratories for rapid testing [2]
• Applying agile science principles for continuous refinement [2]
• Leveraging mixed methods to triangulate findings

Q: What contextual factors are particularly important for cancer control implementation in Asian populations?

A: Implementation research in Asia highlights the necessity of context-specific strategies [5]. Key considerations include:

• Healthcare system heterogeneity across regions
• Economic resources and constraints
• Cultural practices and beliefs
• Linguistic diversity
• Varying infrastructure capabilities Task shifting and decentralized screening are appropriate in low-resource settings, while specialist-led pathways work where infrastructure is strong [5].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Implementation Challenges

Problem: Incomplete knowledge of strategy mechanisms hinders effective matching of strategies to determinants.

Solution Protocol:

• Conduct mechanistic studies to understand how strategies produce effects [2]
• Map strategies to determinants using empirically-supported mechanisms where available
• For example, clinical reminders for cancer screening address provider habitual behavior by providing a cue to action at the point of care [2]

Problem: Determinant identification methods yield general factors but miss EBI- or setting-specific determinants.

Solution Protocol:

• Use the three-stage OPTICC approach: (I) identify and prioritize determinants, (II) match strategies, and (III) optimize strategies [2]
• Engage transdisciplinary teams to leverage multiple perspectives
• Conduct local context analyses to identify unique determinants

Problem: Poor measurement of implementation constructs undermines determinant identification.

Solution Protocol:

• Use reliable, valid, pragmatic measures specifically developed for implementation constructs [2]
• Assess measurement properties before deployment
• Prioritize measures with features valued by implementers: relevance, brevity, low burden, and actionability

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol 1: Determinant Identification and Rating

Purpose: To systematically identify and rate implementation determinants using established methodology.

Materials:

• Data collection tools (interview guides, surveys, observation protocols)
• Recording and transcription equipment
• Qualitative data analysis software (e.g., Atlas.ti, NVivo)
• Damschroder & Lowery rating criteria [1]

Procedure:

• Data Collection: Conduct semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (clinicians, administrators, patients)
• Transcription: Verbatim transcription of interviews
• Coding: Apply CFIR constructs to qualitative data using deductive coding approach
• Rating: Apply Damschroder & Lowery rating scale to assess magnitude and valence:
  • −2: Major barrier (negative influence with explicit examples from multiple interviewees)
  • −1: Minor barrier (negative influence with general statements only)
  • 0: Neutral influence
  • +1: Minor facilitator (positive influence with general statements only)
  • +2: Major facilitator (positive influence with explicit examples from multiple interviewees) [1]
• Analysis: Identify determinants with strongest ratings for prioritization

Validation: Achieve inter-rater reliability through independent rating and consensus discussions.

Protocol 2: Contextual Analysis for Cancer Control Implementation

Purpose: To identify context-specific determinants in cancer control implementation.

Materials:

• Situational analysis frameworks
• Stakeholder mapping tools
• Healthcare system assessment guides
• Cultural adaptation frameworks

Procedure:

• Situational Analysis: Document cancer burden, healthcare resources, and policy environment
• Stakeholder Mapping: Identify key stakeholders across multiple levels (patients, providers, administrators, policymakers)
• Capacity Assessment: Evaluate health system readiness for implementing new interventions [6]
• Barrier-Facilitator Assessment: Conduct focused interviews using CFIR or other determinant frameworks
• Synthesis: Integrate findings to identify contextually-relevant determinants

Application: Particularly crucial for implementation in diverse Asian contexts where healthcare systems, economic capacities, and cultural practices vary significantly [5].

Determinant Prioritization Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the evidence-based process for identifying and prioritizing implementation determinants:

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Materials for Determinant Research

Resource	Function	Application Notes
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)	Comprehensive determinant framework with 48 constructs across 5 domains [1]	Updated in 2022; provides common language for determinant identification
Damschroder & Lowery Rating Scale	Quantifies determinant magnitude and valence (-2 to +2) [1]	Enables prioritization of determinants based on impact strength
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) Checklist	Ensures comprehensive reporting of implementation studies [5]	Enhances study quality and reproducibility
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)	Assesses methodological quality of mixed methods studies [1]	Useful for systematic reviews of determinant studies
Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)	Compilation of 73 implementation strategies [6]	Supports matching strategies to prioritized determinants
Implementation Laboratory (I-Lab)	Coordinates network of clinical and community sites for studies [2]	Enables rapid testing and refinement of determinant identification methods

Advanced Methodologies for Cancer Control Contexts

Social Determinants of Health Assessment

For comprehensive determinant analysis in cancer control, researchers should incorporate social determinants of health (SDOH) assessment using the Healthy People 2030 domains [4]:

• Economic stability
• Education access and quality
• Healthcare access and quality
• Neighborhood and built environment
• Social and community context

Protocol Integration: Include SDOH measures in determinant studies to address cancer disparities and advance equity in implementation [4].

Optimization Methodology for Strategy Matching

The OPTICC Center's approach addresses critical barriers in matching strategies to determinants [2] [3]:

• Improve Methods: Enhance identification and prioritization of barriers in cancer control settings
• Increase Knowledge: Develop better methods for matching implementation strategies to high-priority barriers
• Optimize Strategies: Refine implementation strategies for large-scale evaluation in community and clinical settings

This methodology is particularly relevant for cancer control researchers implementing evidence-based interventions across the cancer care continuum.

Effective identification and prioritization of implementation determinants requires systematic approaches that move beyond simple listing of barriers and facilitators. By applying the protocols, troubleshooting guides, and methodologies outlined in this technical support resource, cancer control researchers can enhance their determinant analyses, leading to more effective implementation strategy selection and ultimately improved cancer outcomes. The field continues to advance with developing better measures, clarifying strategy mechanisms, and creating more efficient optimization methods—all critical for progressing implementation science in cancer control [2].

Framework Comparison at a Glance

The table below summarizes the core structures and primary applications of the CFIR, EPIS, and i-PARIHS frameworks to help researchers select the most appropriate one for their cancer control research context.

Framework	Core Components & Structure	Primary Application in Cancer Research	Key Distinguishing Features
CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) [7] [8]	5 Domains:- Innovation- Outer Setting- Inner Setting- Individuals- Implementation Process	Systematic assessment of barriers and facilitators prior to or during implementation; guides tailoring of strategies [7].	"Determinant framework" with 48 constructs; used to predict/explain implementation success [8].
EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) [9] [10]	4 Phases:- Exploration- Preparation- Implementation- Sustainment	Guides and describes the entire implementation process, emphasizing multi-level contextual factors across phases [9].	Explicitly frames implementation as a multi-phase process; highlights "bridging factors" linking outer and inner contexts [9].
i-PARIHS (Integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) [11] [12]	4 Core Constructs:- Innovation- Recipients- Context (Inner & Outer)- Facilitation	Explains successful implementation (SI) as a function of facilitation (Fac) enacting the innovation with recipients in their context [12].	Facilitation is the active ingredient; framework is complex, non-linear, and flexible [12].

Experimental Protocols for Framework Application

Protocol 1: Applying the CFIR to Identify Determinants

The following protocol outlines the steps for using the CFIR to guide a systematic barrier and facilitator analysis, which is critical for planning and tailoring implementation strategies in cancer control initiatives [8] [13].

Step 1: Study Design & Boundary Specification

• Define the Research Question and Implementation Outcome: Clearly state whether you are assessing determinants prospectively (predicting future outcomes) or retrospectively (explaining past or current outcomes) [8]. Example outcome: adoption of a new colorectal cancer screening guideline.
• Define CFIR Domain Boundaries: Specify what constitutes the "Innovation" (e.g., the new guideline), "Inner Setting" (e.g., the oncology clinic), and "Outer Setting" (e.g., national insurance policies) for your study. This clarifies attribution of barriers/facilitators [8].

Step 2: Data Collection & Sampling

• Select Constructs: It is often impractical to study all 48 CFIR constructs. Use group deliberations with stakeholders or a preliminary survey to select a subset of constructs most likely to influence your implementation outcome [13].
• Determine Data Collection Approach: Use qualitative (e.g., interviews, focus groups) or quantitative methods (e.g., surveys), or a mixed-methods approach [8]. For interviews, use semi-structured guides with questions mapped to selected CFIR constructs [8].
• Develop a Sampling Strategy: Define the unit of analysis (e.g., individual clinicians, clinic teams, entire hospitals) and select participants based on criteria like organizational role or tenure to ensure diverse perspectives [13].

Step 3: Data Analysis & Interpretation

• Code Data to CFIR Constructs: Use qualitative analysis software to code transcripts and notes to the CFIR domains and constructs. The CFIR Leadership Team provides coding guidelines and templates to ensure consistency [8].
• Rate Construct Valence: For key constructs, assign a rating (e.g., strong barrier, weak facilitator, neutral) to indicate the strength and direction of the construct's influence on implementation [8] [13].
• Interpret Findings: Identify the constructs that are the most significant "difference-makers" for your implementation outcome. This analysis directly informs the selection of implementation strategies designed to overcome key barriers and leverage key facilitators [8].

Protocol 2: Operationalizing the i-PARIHS Framework

This protocol focuses on the practical steps for applying the i-PARIHS framework, which centers on facilitation as its active ingredient [12].

Step 1: Pre-Implementation Assessment using the Facilitation Checklist

• Innovation Assessment: Use the i-PARIHS Facilitation Checklist to assess the cancer control innovation (e.g., a new patient navigation program). Evaluate its key characteristics, such as its relative advantage over current practice and its complexity [11] [12].
• Recipients Assessment: Analyze the intended users (recipients) of the innovation, both as individuals and as a collective team. Consider their motivations, skills, and values regarding the innovation [12].
• Context Assessment: Diagnose the inner context (e.g., clinic leadership, culture) and outer context (e.g., health system policies, incentives) to understand the environment for implementation [11] [12].

Step 2: Develop a Tailored Implementation Plan

• Based on the assessment, the facilitator (internal or external) develops a structured implementation plan. This plan should be tailored to address the specific needs identified in the innovation, recipients, and context assessments [12].

Step 3: Iterative Facilitation and Monitoring

• Engage in Facilitation: The facilitator executes the plan, employing a range of skills and actions from the "Facilitator's Toolkit." This role involves moving along a continuum from "doing for others" (task-oriented) to "enabling and empowering" (developmental) [11] [12].
• Monitor Fidelity and Progress: Use project-specific tools to monitor the fidelity of the implementation activities and track progress. The flexible, non-linear nature of i-PARIHS requires ongoing monitoring and adaptation of strategies [12].

Logical Workflow for Framework Selection and Application

The diagram below illustrates a decision pathway for selecting and applying an implementation science framework, from initial assessment to evaluation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Troubleshooting

Q1: How do I choose between CFIR, EPIS, and i-PARIHS for my cancer control project?

A: The choice depends on your primary need [14]:

• Use CFIR if you need a comprehensive, systematic "menu" of constructs to diagnose and assess potential barriers and facilitators before or during implementation [7] [8].
• Use EPIS if you want to frame your entire study or project according to a temporal, phase-based journey (Exploration to Sustainment) and are particularly interested in the interplay between outer system and inner organizational contexts [9] [10].
• Use i-PARIHS if your intervention is complex and you plan to rely heavily on a facilitator role as the central, active component to integrate the innovation, recipients, and context [11] [12]. It is acceptable and sometimes beneficial to use multiple frameworks to address different needs within a single project [14].

Q2: I am using the CFIR, but it's too large to study every construct. How do I select the most relevant ones?

A: This is a common challenge. The CFIR team recommends three practical approaches [13]:

• Group Deliberations: The research team uses consensus decision-making to prioritize constructs based on their likely influence in your specific context.
• Stakeholder Survey: Survey local stakeholders (e.g., clinicians, administrators) to identify which constructs they perceive as most important.
• Theoretical Model: Use a complementary theoretical model to guide the selection of a specific subset of CFIR constructs. It is critical that if you focus on a subset, your data collection (e.g., interview questions) remains sufficiently open-ended to allow other unanticipated influences to emerge [13].

Q3: In i-PARIHS, what is the difference between a novice and an expert facilitator, and why does it matter?

A: The i-PARIHS framework outlines a "Facilitator's Journey," where individuals develop from novice to expert [12]. This matters because the skill of the facilitator directly impacts the implementation success.

• A Novice Facilitator (whether internal or external to the organization) may need more structured tools and checklists and might operate more in a "doing for others" capacity.
• An Expert Facilitator is more adept at using a holistic, enabling approach, mentoring teams, and dynamically responding to complex, changing contexts [12]. For projects using i-PARIHS, it is crucial to assess facilitator skills and provide appropriate support and training.

Q4: My implementation project was not successful. How can these frameworks help me understand what went wrong?

A: All three frameworks are valuable for conducting a post-implementation retrospective analysis.

• CFIR: You can use the domains and constructs as a coding scheme to analyze qualitative data (e.g., interview transcripts from staff) to systematically identify which determinants acted as the most significant barriers, providing a working hypothesis for the failure [13].
• EPIS: You can retrace the four phases (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment) to pinpoint where critical elements were missing. For example, was there a failure in the Preparation phase to secure key leadership support (an inner context factor)? [9]
• i-PARIHS: The framework would guide you to evaluate the interaction between the innovation, recipients, and context, and, crucially, to assess whether the facilitation provided was adequate and appropriate for the challenge [12].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists essential conceptual "reagents" and resources for effectively applying implementation science frameworks in cancer research.

Tool / Resource	Function / Purpose	Framework Association
CFIR Technical Assistance Website (cfirguide.org) [7]	Central repository for the latest CFIR updates, user guides, worksheets, and coding templates.	CFIR
CFIR Outcomes Addendum [8]	Provides conceptual clarity to distinguish between implementation outcomes and innovation outcomes, ensuring appropriate measurement.	CFIR
EPIS Framework Website (episframework.com) [9]	Provides resources, measures, and tools for applying the EPIS framework across different contexts.	EPIS
i-PARIHS Facilitation Guide & Checklist [12]	A structured tool used during the pre-implementation phase to assess the Innovation, Recipients, and Context to inform facilitation efforts.	i-PARIHS
Theory Comparison and Selection Tool (T-CaST) [14]	A tool to help researchers systematically compare and select the most suitable implementation science framework based on defined criteria.	All Frameworks

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are "determinants" in the context of cancer control implementation? A1: In implementation science, determinants are the barriers or facilitators that influence the successful implementation of a new clinical practice or evidence-based intervention into routine care [2]. Identifying these factors is a critical first step in designing effective implementation strategies.

Q2: Why are current methods for identifying implementation barriers considered "underdeveloped"? A2: Current methods, such as interviews, focus groups, and surveys using general frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), are subject to limitations including low participant recognition of barriers (insight), low saliency (recall), and low disclosure due to social desirability. Furthermore, they often identify more determinants than can be addressed with available resources, and methods for prioritizing the most critical barriers are lacking [2].

Q3: What are the consequences of poorly identified implementation barriers? A3: When barriers are not accurately identified and prioritized, the resulting implementation strategies are often mismatched to the context. This leads to suboptimal implementation of evidence-based interventions, which fails to realize their potential to reduce cancer deaths—for example, by 90% for cervical cancer, 70% for colorectal cancer, and 95% for lung cancer [2] [15].

Q4: What advanced methods is the OPTICC Center exploring to improve barrier identification? A4: The OPTICC Center is developing, testing, and refining innovative and efficient methods. This includes a three-stage optimization approach: (I) identify and prioritize determinants, (II) match strategies to these determinants, and (III) optimize the strategies. This process leverages advances from multiphase optimization strategies, user-centered design, and agile science [2].

Q5: How can our research team better prioritize which barriers to target first? A5: A major research gap is the lack of robust methods for prioritization. Moving beyond feasibility alone, researchers should seek to develop and validate criteria to identify the determinants with the greatest potential to undermine implementation success. Engaging key practice partners is also crucial for ensuring that prioritization reflects on-the-ground realities and equity considerations [2] [15].

Troubleshooting Guide: Common Experimental Scenarios

Scenario 1: Overwhelming Number of Identified Barriers

Problem: Your initial assessment using a general determinants framework has yielded dozens of potential barriers, and your team lacks the resources to address them all.

Solution: Implement a systematic prioritization process.

• Step 1: Categorize all identified barriers into logical groups (e.g., related to the clinician, the patient, the inner organizational setting, the outer policy environment).
• Step 2: Establish and weight prioritization criteria. These may include:
  • Magnitude of Impact: How significantly does the barrier block implementation?
  • Modifiability: How feasible is it to change or influence this barrier?
  • Alignment with Partner Priorities: How important is addressing this barrier to your clinical or community partners? [15]
• Step 3: Use a structured scoring system (e.g., a matrix) with your research and partner team to rank barriers based on the weighted criteria.
• Step 4: Focus your implementation strategy design on the top-ranked barriers.

Scenario 2: Low Response or Social Desirability Bias in Surveys

Problem: Survey responses to barrier identification measures are limited, or respondents are providing answers they believe are socially acceptable rather than reflecting actual barriers.

Solution: Triangulate data sources and methods.

• Step 1: Supplement survey data with qualitative methods like direct observation or analysis of existing data (e.g., clinical workflow audits, EHR utilization reports) to uncover barriers participants may not report [2].
• Step 2: Ensure anonymity in data collection to encourage candid responses.
• Step 3: Utilize or develop more pragmatic measures of implementation constructs that have demonstrated reliability, validity, and are brief and actionable for respondents [2].

Scenario 3: Mismatched Implementation Strategies

Problem: Despite identifying barriers, the implementation strategies you deploy are ineffective, suggesting a poor strategy-determinant match.

Solution: Improve the matching process by investigating strategy mechanisms.

• Step 1: For each high-priority barrier, hypothesize the mechanism of action—the process through which a strategy produces its effect—that would be required to address it [2]. For example, to address "habitual behavior," a strategy must provide a "cue to action" [2].
• Step 2: Select implementation strategies based on their hypothesized mechanism, not just personal preference or organizational routine.
• Step 3: Design your study to test not only if a strategy works, but how it works, by measuring the activation of the proposed mechanism.

Experimental Protocols & Data Presentation

Protocol 1: Method for Determinant Identification and Prioritization

Objective: To systematically identify and prioritize implementation determinants for a specific evidence-based cancer control intervention.

Workflow:

Methodology:

• Multi-Method Assessment: Conduct a mixed-methods assessment using at least two data sources (e.g., surveys based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), qualitative interviews with key stakeholders, and analysis of existing operational data) [2].
• Barrier Synthesis: Compile a comprehensive list of all potential barriers from the assessment.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Convene a panel including researchers, clinicians, and administrative staff. Collaboratively define and weight prioritization criteria (e.g., impact, modifiability, equity).
• Structured Scoring: Each panel member independently scores each barrier against the criteria. Scores are then aggregated and discussed to create a final ranked list.

Quantitative Data: Potential Impact of Optimized Implementation

The following table summarizes the potential reduction in cancer mortality achievable through the widespread and effective implementation of evidence-based interventions, highlighting the critical importance of overcoming identification barriers [2].

Table 1: Potential Impact of Fully Implemented Evidence-Based Interventions in Cancer Control

Cancer Type	Potential Reduction in Mortality
Cervical	90%
Colorectal	70%
Lung	95%

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for Implementation Science in Cancer Control

Item / Resource	Function / Description
Determinants Frameworks (e.g., CFIR)	Provides a structured set of constructs to systematically assess potential barriers and facilitators across multiple domains (e.g., intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting) [2].
Implementation Strategies Compilation	A catalog of defined strategies (e.g., from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change - ERIC) that can be selected and tailored to address specific, prioritized barriers [2].
Pragmatic Measures	Brief, validated, and actionable instruments to measure key implementation constructs like feasibility, acceptability, and penetration in real-world settings [2].
Partner Engagement Protocol	A structured plan for involving clinical and community partners throughout the research process to ensure relevance, equity, and practical prioritization of barriers [15].
Multi-Phase Optimization Strategy (MOST)	A framework for efficiently engineering an implementation strategy package by screening multiple strategy components to identify the most effective and efficient combination [2].

In cancer control research, the "outer setting" encompasses the vast social, economic, and policy landscape that profoundly influences the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based interventions. These external determinants include factors such as socioeconomic status, health insurance coverage, geographic location, and federal research policies, which create the ecosystem in which implementation occurs. Research indicates that social determinants of health (SDOH) may contribute to up to 70% of cancer cases and significantly increase cancer mortality, underscoring the critical importance of addressing these factors to achieve health equity [16]. For implementation scientists, understanding and methodologically prioritizing these determinants is essential for designing strategies that can successfully navigate this complex outer context and reduce the burden of cancer across diverse populations.

Troubleshooting Guides: Navigating Outer Setting Challenges

Guide 1: Addressing Recruitment and Representation Challenges in Clinical Trials

Presenting Problem: Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic diversity of the patient population, limiting the generalizability of findings.

Troubleshooting Steps:

• Conduct a Barrier Analysis: Perform qualitative interviews and focus groups with non-participating communities to identify specific structural (e.g., transportation, clinic hours), financial (e.g., lost wages, childcare costs), and trust-related barriers [17] [18].
• Implement Evidence-Based Mitigation Strategies: Based on the analysis, integrate targeted solutions such as:
  • Financial navigation services to help offset patient costs [17].
  • Partnerships with community health centers to decentralize trial access and build trust [18].
  • Culturally tailored patient navigation programs to guide participants through the trial process [17].
• Monitor and Iterate: Track enrollment demographics continuously against local cancer incidence data. If disparities persist, return to Step 1 to identify and address new barriers.

Guide 2: Adapting to Fluctuating Federal Research Funding

Presenting Problem: Proposed severe cuts to federal research funding threaten project viability and continuity, potentially delaying the development of new cancer therapies [19].

Troubleshooting Steps:

• Diversify Funding Portfolios: Actively seek administrative supplements, such as those offered by the NCI to advance transdisciplinary and large-scale population science, which can provide up to $150,000 in supplemental funding [20].
• Engage in Science Policy Advocacy: Collaborate with professional societies to communicate with Congress about the economic and public health impact of sustained NIH/NCI funding, emphasizing that it supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates billions in economic activity [19].
• Develop a Contingency Plan: Design research phases with clear go/no-go decision points that align with potential funding scenarios, prioritizing the most critical aims for limited budget environments.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What are concrete examples of Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) impacting cancer care outcomes? A: SDOH are non-medical factors that profoundly shape cancer outcomes [17] [16]. Key examples and their impacts are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Key Social Determinants of Health and Their Impact on Cancer Care

SDOH Factor	Key Impacts on Cancer Care	Evidence-Based Interventions
Socioeconomic Status (SES)	Lower SES is linked to advanced-stage diagnoses and higher cancer mortality. Patients in the lowest-income bracket have a 13% higher risk of death [17].	Medicaid expansion; integration of SDOH screening into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to connect patients with resources [17].
Race & Ethnicity	Systemic inequities lead to delayed diagnoses and reduced access to quality care. Black women have a 21% higher mortality rate from breast cancer [17].	Implicit bias training for providers; policies to increase diversity in clinical trials; culturally competent care [17].
Geographic Location	Rural populations experience higher cancer mortality and are 15-30% more likely to present with late-stage cancer due to reduced access to specialists [17].	Expansion of telemedicine services; mobile cancer screening clinics; travel subsidies for patients [17].
Health Insurance	Lack of insurance is a major barrier to screening and timely treatment. Hispanic individuals have the lowest insurance rates (19% uninsured) [17].	Policy interventions to expand insurance coverage; patient navigation programs to help enrolled individuals utilize benefits [17] [18].
Education	Lower education levels are associated with higher cancer incidence, potentially due to occupational exposures and differences in health literacy [16].	Community-based health education initiatives; clear and accessible patient communication materials.

Q: How can our research team systematically identify and prioritize outer setting determinants for a specific implementation project? A: The OPTICC Center highlights underdeveloped methods for barrier identification as a critical challenge [15]. A recommended methodology is:

• Conduct an Environmental Scan and Partner Convening: As outlined in NCI's administrative supplement guidelines, this involves identifying and convening key community and clinical partners to map the external context [20]. This should include interviews and focus groups with patients, providers, and payers.
• Perform a Policy Analysis: Review existing local, state, and federal policies that influence your intervention (e.g., Medicaid reimbursement rules, scope-of-practice laws).
• Synthesize and Triangulate Data: Analyze qualitative, quantitative, and policy data to create a consolidated list of determinants.
• Prioritize Using a Structured Framework: Use a framework like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to categorize determinants. Then, prioritize them based on partner input on magnitude of impact and changeability.

Q: What funding mechanisms support research on implementation determinants in cancer control? A: Several mechanisms are available:

• Administrative Supplements: The NCI Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) offers administrative supplements (up to $150,000 for 1 year) to existing grants to support planning for large-scale, transdisciplinary research that addresses complex problems in cancer control, which can include focus on implementation contexts and outer setting factors [20].
• Extramural Grants: Organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS) prioritize research in "Health Equity Across the Cancer Control Continuum," which explicitly includes "multilevel research addressing root causes of cancer health disparities related to SDOH" [18].
• Consortium Funding: The NCI's Implementation Science Centers for Cancer Control Consortium (ISC3) supports centers like the OPTICC Center, which focus on developing and testing methods to overcome implementation barriers [15].

Q: From a regulatory perspective, how can drug developers account for outer setting factors in clinical development plans? A: The FDA's Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) encourages innovative trial designs that promote broad participation [19]. Key strategies include:

• Expanded Eligibility Criteria: Follow FDA guidance to include patients with organ dysfunction or prior malignancies, who are often excluded but represent real-world populations [21].
• Decentralized Trial Elements: Incorporate local clinics and telemedicine to reduce geographic and transportation barriers, a significant outer setting determinant [17] [19].
• Practical Endpoints: Consider how use of practical endpoints can reduce patient burden and cost, facilitating participation across socioeconomic strata.

Experimental Protocols for Determinant Prioritization

Protocol: Mixed-Methods Barrier Analysis for Implementation Planning

Purpose: To systematically identify and prioritize contextual barriers and facilitators within the outer setting prior to selecting implementation strategies.

Methodology:

• Data Collection:
  • Qualitative Component: Conduct semi-structured interviews (n=20-30) and focus groups (3-4 groups) with key stakeholders, including patients, frontline clinicians, system administrators, and policy makers. Use interview guides based on established implementation science frameworks (e.g., CFIR) [15].
  • Quantitative Component: Administer a survey (e.g., incorporating items from the SDOH-related datasets or the Cancer Health Assessments & Dialogue Study) to a larger sample (n=100+) to quantify the prevalence of identified barriers.
• Data Analysis:
  • Qualitative Analysis: Use rapid qualitative analysis and directed content analysis to code transcripts into predefined framework domains. Identify salient themes related to outer setting factors such as reimbursement policies, community stigma, and state-level regulations.
  • Quantitative Analysis: Perform descriptive statistics (frequencies, means) on survey responses to rank barriers by perceived importance and prevalence.
• Triangulation and Prioritization: Convene a stakeholder panel including community partners. Present findings from both qualitative and quantitative analyses. Use a structured prioritization matrix (e.g., impact vs. feasibility) to reach consensus on the top 3-5 outer setting determinants to address in the implementation strategy [15].

Protocol: Policy Analysis and Environmental Scan

Purpose: To map the external policy and economic landscape that influences the implementation of a specific cancer control intervention.

Methodology:

• Document Review: Systematically identify and review relevant policy documents, including:
  • Federal and state legislation (e.g., Medicaid coverage rules, cancer screening mandates).
  • Health system administrative policies.
  • National guideline recommendations (e.g., USPSTF, NCCN).
  • Economic reports on funding streams and reimbursement rates.
• Stakeholder Verification: Present the synthesized policy map to key informants (e.g., policy makers, hospital CFOs) for verification, clarification, and to identify gaps.
• Analysis of Alignment: Analyze the degree of alignment or conflict between the identified policies and the core components of the evidence-based intervention you aim to implement. This analysis will reveal policy-related facilitators and barriers critical for planning.

Visualization: Workflows and Pathways

Outer Setting Determinant Prioritization Workflow

This diagram outlines the mixed-methods protocol for identifying and prioritizing outer setting determinants.

Impact of Social Determinants on Cancer Continuum

This diagram illustrates how social determinants influence outcomes across the entire cancer care continuum.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Resources for Research on Implementation Determinants

Resource / Tool	Function in Research	Example / Source
Implementation Science Frameworks	Provides a structured way to identify, categorize, and analyze determinants across inner and outer settings.	Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [15].
Administrative Supplement Funding	Supplemental funding to existing grants to support planning and capacity-building for large-scale, transdisciplinary research.	NCI DCCPS Administrative Supplements (PA-20-272) [20].
Stakeholder Engagement Platforms	Formal structures for partnering with community and clinical stakeholders to ensure research addresses real-world barriers.	Community Advisory Boards; Partner Convenings as described in NCI supplements [20] [18].
SDOH Data Integration Tools	Methods and tools for incorporating data on social determinants into research datasets and Electronic Health Records (EHRs).	ICD-10 Z-codes; Area Deprivation Index; EHR integration projects [17] [18].
Policy Analysis Resources	Repositories and tools for accessing and analyzing health policy documents that form part of the outer setting.	FDA Guidance Documents [21]; State Cancer Legislative Databases; NIH Scientific Management System [19].

Implementation science reveals that merely developing evidence-based interventions is insufficient for improving cancer outcomes; successful integration into routine healthcare practice is paramount. This process is governed by implementation determinants—barriers and facilitators that influence the effective adoption of cancer control interventions [2]. The systematic prioritization of these determinants represents a critical methodological challenge in implementation science, as cancer control settings often present dozens of potential determinants with limited resources to address them all [2]. When National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) fail to explicitly address determinant prioritization, implementation often falters, creating a persistent gap between strategic planning and tangible population health impact [6] [22].

Recent global analyses reveal significant shortcomings in how NCCPs approach implementation planning. A 2025 scoping review of NCCPs from low and medium Human Development Index (HDI) countries found that while many plans incorporated elements like stakeholder engagement and situational analysis, these processes were typically "unstructured and incomplete" [6]. Most critically, none of the analyzed plans conducted health system capacity assessments to determine readiness for implementing proposed interventions [6]. This represents a fundamental gap in determinant prioritization, as understanding system capacity is prerequisite to identifying which determinants warrant prioritization.

The political context of cancer control further complicates determinant prioritization. Political interests, ideas, and institutions significantly influence which determinants receive attention in NCCPs [23]. For instance, the 2019 Philippine National Integrated Cancer Control Act demonstrated how patient advocacy could mobilize political will around specific implementation barriers, while in other contexts, political interests of industries like tobacco can hinder implementation of evidence-based tobacco control measures even when included in NCCPs [23]. These political dimensions must be recognized within determinant prioritization frameworks to ensure that scientific rather than purely political considerations guide implementation planning.

Global Case Studies in Determinant Prioritization

Methodology for Case Study Analysis

The case studies presented in this analysis were identified through systematic examination of NCCPs using the Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping reviews [6]. This methodological approach involved identifying relevant NCCPs through the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal, with specific inclusion criteria focusing on plans available in English or French from low and medium HDI countries [6]. The research team developed a data charting form using MS Excel to capture details on each country's planning process, with subsequent categorization into five implementation domains derived from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) framework: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) situational analysis, (3) capacity assessment/health technology assessment, (4) economic evaluation, and (5) impact measurement [6].

Data extraction and analysis followed a structured process to ensure consistency across case studies. Two authors independently reviewed each NCCP, highlighting sections corresponding to the five implementation domains and indicating whether each method was included [6]. A thematic analysis was then conducted to identify patterns of determinant prioritization across plans. The analysis was further validated through consultation with six implementation science experts selected based on their peer-reviewed publications and experience advising resource-constrained countries on cancer control planning [6]. This rigorous methodology ensures the reliability and comparability of findings across the case studies.

Analysis of Determinant Prioritization Approaches

Table 1: Approaches to Determinant Prioritization in National Cancer Control Plans

Country/Region	Stakeholder Engagement	Situational Analysis	Capacity Assessment	Economic Evaluation	Impact Measurement
Low HDI Countries (n=16)	Limited and unstructured inclusion of stakeholders	Present but variable in comprehensiveness	Absent in all plans	4 of 16 plans included costed components	All plans included impact measures but often lacked implementation mechanisms
Medium HDI Countries (n=17)	Broader but still incomplete engagement	More comprehensive analysis	Absent in all plans	9 of 17 plans included costed components	More robust indicators but similar implementation challenges
European Union Beating Cancer Plan	Structured multi-sectoral engagement	Comprehensive data-driven analysis	Explicit capacity building with €4 billion funding	Detailed activity-based costing	Specific targets with accountability mechanisms

The analysis reveals striking patterns in how different countries and regions approach determinant prioritization within their NCCPs. The near-universal absence of formal capacity assessment represents the most significant gap across low and medium HDI countries [6]. Without systematic assessment of health system capacity—including workforce, infrastructure, and financial resources—plans inevitably prioritize determinants based on assumption rather than evidence, leading to implementation failures when contextual realities cannot support proposed interventions.

Stakeholder engagement approaches varied significantly across plans, with important implications for determinant prioritization. While most NCCPs described some form of stakeholder engagement, these processes were typically "unstructured and incomplete" [6]. This contrasts with more structured approaches like the European Union's Beating Cancer Plan, which demonstrated how comprehensive stakeholder engagement can inform more realistic determinant prioritization through its mobilization of €4 billion and addressing of the entire cancer continuum [22]. The political dimension of stakeholder engagement was particularly evident in case studies from Brazil and the Philippines, where patient advocacy movements successfully influenced which implementation determinants received priority in national planning [23].

Economic evaluation emerged as another differentiating factor in determinant prioritization approaches. Only 25% of low HDI country plans and approximately 53% of medium HDI country plans included costed components [6]. This absence of economic evaluation severely limits evidence-based prioritization, as resource constraints represent fundamental determinants in implementation. The case studies suggest that without explicit costing, prioritization often defaults to politically salient rather than empirically supported determinants.

Methodological Framework for Determinant Prioritization

The OPTICC Approach to Prioritization

The Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC) Center has developed a structured, three-stage framework for addressing the critical challenge of determinant prioritization in cancer control implementation [2]. This approach was specifically designed to overcome four key barriers that have traditionally hampered implementation effectiveness: (1) underdeveloped methods for determinant identification and prioritization, (2) incomplete knowledge of strategy mechanisms, (3) underuse of methods for optimizing strategies, and (4) poor measurement of implementation constructs [2]. The OPTICC framework provides implementation researchers with a systematic methodology for moving from determinant identification to strategic implementation.

Table 2: Three-Stage OPTICC Framework for Determinant Prioritization

Stage	Key Activities	Methods and Tools	Outputs
Stage I: Identify and Prioritize Determinants	Comprehensive determinant identification using mixed methods; Systematic prioritization based on impact and feasibility	CFIR or TDF frameworks; Novel prioritization methods addressing feasibility and potential impact	Ranked list of determinants categorized by implementation domain and potential impact
Stage II: Match Strategies	Mapping implementation strategies to prioritized determinants; Mechanism-based matching	ERIC compilation; Mechanism identification through theoretical and empirical work	Tailored implementation strategy package with hypothesized mechanisms of action
Stage III: Optimize Strategies	Refining strategy components and delivery modes; Testing efficiency and effectiveness	Multiphase optimization strategy (MOST); User-centered design; Agile science	Optimized, efficient implementation strategy with specified delivery parameters

The OPTICC approach emphasizes mechanism-based strategy matching, addressing a critical gap in conventional implementation practice. As noted in the OPTICC protocol, "Matching strategies to determinants absent knowledge of mechanisms is largely guesswork" [2]. By focusing on understanding how implementation strategies produce their effects (their mechanisms), the framework enables more precise matching of strategies to prioritized determinants. For example, clinical reminders for cancer screening effectively address provider habitual behavior by providing a cue to action at the point of care—understanding this mechanism enables more effective deployment [2].

A particularly innovative aspect of the OPTICC framework is its application of agile science principles to implementation strategy optimization [2]. Traditional approaches often move directly from pilot studies to randomized controlled trials, leaving little room for optimizing strategy delivery formats, sources, or dosage. The OPTICC method instead employs multiphase optimization strategies and user-centered design to refine implementation strategies before large-scale evaluation, ensuring that the strategies deployed are not only evidence-based but also optimized for efficiency and effectiveness within specific contexts [2].

Experimental Protocol for Determinant Prioritization

Based on the OPTICC framework and analysis of successful NCCP implementation approaches, the following experimental protocol provides a standardized methodology for determinant prioritization in cancer control research:

Protocol Title: Mixed-Methods Assessment and Prioritization of Implementation Determinants for Cancer Control Planning

Objective: To systematically identify, categorize, and prioritize implementation determinants for evidence-based cancer control interventions within specific health system contexts.

Materials and Equipment:

• Assessment guides based on Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) or Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)
• Digital recording equipment for qualitative interviews
• Online survey platforms for quantitative assessments
• Data analysis software (e.g., NVivo for qualitative data, R or SPSS for quantitative data)
• Stakeholder mapping templates
• Prioritization matrix worksheets

Procedure:

• Stakeholder Mapping and Engagement (Weeks 1-2):
  • Identify and categorize stakeholders using the WHO's health system building blocks framework (leadership/governance, healthcare workforce, health information systems, essential medical products and technologies, financing, service delivery) [6]
  • Conduct initial stakeholder consultations to map perceived implementation determinants
  • Establish ongoing engagement mechanisms for prioritized stakeholder groups

• Determinant Identification (Weeks 3-8):

  • Conduct semi-structured interviews with key stakeholder representatives (n=20-30, or to saturation)
  • Administer implementation determinant surveys to broader stakeholder groups (n=100+ depending on context)
  • Analyze policy and planning documents using structured extraction tools
  • Conduct direct observation of implementation contexts where feasible

• Determinant Categorization and Initial Prioritization (Weeks 9-12):

  • Code qualitative data using established implementation frameworks (CFIR or TDF)
  • Analyze quantitative data to identify determinant frequency and perceived importance
  • Conduct initial prioritization workshop with stakeholder representatives using nominal group technique
  • Develop determinant priority matrix mapping impact against feasibility of address

• Validation and Refinement (Weeks 13-16):

  • Present preliminary findings to broader stakeholder groups for validation
  • Conduct member checking with initial interview participants
  • Refine prioritization based on validation feedback
  • Finalize determinant prioritization list with implementation recommendations

Data Analysis:

• Qualitative data: Conduct thematic analysis using both deductive (framework-based) and inductive approaches
• Quantitative data: Perform descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis to identify determinant domains
• Integrated analysis: Use joint displays to visualize qualitative and quantitative data convergence and divergence
• Prioritization scoring: Develop composite scores based on determinant frequency, perceived impact, and addressability

This protocol addresses critical methodological gaps identified in global NCCP analyses, particularly the lack of structured capacity assessment and stakeholder engagement [6]. By providing a standardized yet flexible approach, it enables more systematic and evidence-based determinant prioritization across diverse implementation contexts.

Research Reagent Solutions for Determinant Prioritization

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Implementation Determinant Prioritization Studies

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Context	Key Features
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)	Determinant identification and categorization	Comprehensive assessment of implementation context across multiple domains	39 constructs across 5 domains; provides common taxonomy for cross-study comparison
Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)	Understanding determinants related to clinician behavior	Targeting healthcare provider behavior change in cancer control	14 domains covering individual, social, and environmental determinants of behavior
Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)	Matching strategies to prioritized determinants	Selecting implementation strategies after determinant prioritization	73 defined implementation strategies with definitions and operationalizations
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI)	Ensuring methodological rigor and comprehensive reporting	Protocol development and research reporting in determinant prioritization studies	27-item checklist addressing both implementation strategy and research methodology
Project ECHO for NCCP Implementation	Building capacity for determinant prioritization and plan execution	Supporting implementation in low-resource settings through tele-mentoring	Technology-enabled collaborative learning model; demonstrated significant improvements in knowledge and confidence [24]

These research reagents provide the essential methodological tools for conducting rigorous determinant prioritization research. The CFIR and TDF frameworks address the "underdeveloped methods for determinant identification" noted in the OPTICC protocol by providing structured approaches to capture the complex, multi-level determinants that influence implementation success [2]. These frameworks help overcome limitations of self-report methods—including low participant recognition of determinants, low saliency in recall, and social desirability biases—by providing comprehensive, theoretically-grounded assessment guides [2].

The ERIC compilation represents a critical tool for the strategy matching phase of determinant prioritization, enabling researchers to systematically link prioritized determinants to evidence-informed implementation strategies [6]. However, as noted in the OPTICC protocol, the utility of ERIC is currently limited by "incomplete knowledge of strategy mechanisms" [2]. Future research must focus not only on identifying which strategies work but also on clarifying how they work—their mechanisms of action—to enable more precise matching to prioritized determinants.

Project ECHO emerges as a particularly promising "reagent" for building system-level capacity for determinant prioritization and NCCP implementation, especially in resource-constrained settings. Evaluation of the ICCP ECHO program demonstrated "significant improvements in knowledge and confidence" among participants implementing NCCPs [24]. This technology-enabled collaborative learning model provides a mechanism for sharing determinant prioritization approaches across contexts and building implementation capacity without requiring extensive resources for in-person technical assistance.

Visualization of Determinant Prioritization Workflows

Determinant Prioritization Methodology

Determinant Prioritization Methodology Flowchart

This workflow visualization illustrates the comprehensive methodology for determinant prioritization in NCCP implementation, highlighting critical pathway elements and common failure points. The red connection from capacity assessment to determinant categorization signifies the critical gap identified in global analyses, where this component was absent from all reviewed low and medium HDI country plans [6]. The visualization emphasizes that successful prioritization requires integration of multiple assessment types, with inadequate attention to any single component compromising the entire process.

The workflow begins with comprehensive determinant identification using mixed methods, then moves through four parallel assessment processes before synthesizing findings through categorization and prioritization. This structured approach addresses the OPTICC Center's observation that implementation settings often have "dozens of implementation determinants" complicating decisions about which to prioritize [2]. By systematically moving from identification through prioritization to strategy matching, the methodology provides a roadmap for addressing this complexity.

Implementation Strategy Optimization

Implementation Strategy Optimization Pathway

This visualization outlines the critical pathway for moving from prioritized determinants to optimized implementation strategies, with particular emphasis on the often-neglected mechanism identification phase (highlighted in red). The dashed feedback loops illustrate the iterative nature of strategy optimization, where ongoing refinement is informed by mechanism identification and testing results [2]. This approach addresses the limitation of traditional implementation research that typically "jumps from pilot study to RCT," leaving little room for optimizing strategy delivery formats, sources, or dosage [2].

The pathway emphasizes that strategy selection should be guided not merely by determinant matching but by understanding the mechanisms through which strategies produce their effects. As noted in the OPTICC protocol, "Much like knowing how hammers' and screwdrivers' work supports the selection of one tool over the other for specific tasks..., knowing how strategies work supports effective matching of strategies to determinants" [2]. This mechanism-focused approach represents a significant advancement over traditional implementation practice.

Discussion and Future Directions

The analysis of determinant prioritization in NCCPs reveals significant methodological advances alongside persistent challenges. The development of structured frameworks like OPTICC's three-stage approach provides implementation researchers with more systematic methods for moving from determinant identification to strategy optimization [2]. However, global analyses indicate that these advanced methodologies have not yet been widely incorporated into actual cancer control planning processes, particularly in resource-constrained settings [6].

Future research must address several critical gaps in determinant prioritization methodology. First, the near-universal absence of capacity assessment in existing NCCPs represents a fundamental flaw in current prioritization approaches [6]. Without understanding system readiness and constraints, determinant prioritization risks focusing on theoretically important but practically irrelevant barriers. Second, the limited understanding of implementation strategy mechanisms continues to hamper effective matching of strategies to prioritized determinants [2]. Third, political determinants of cancer health require greater integration into implementation frameworks to account for how political interests, ideas, and institutions influence which determinants receive attention [23].

The evolving landscape of NCCP implementation suggests promising directions for addressing these gaps. The documented success of Project ECHO in building implementation capacity demonstrates how technology-enabled collaborative learning models can support more effective determinant prioritization and strategy selection [24]. Similarly, the growing emphasis on policy implementation science within funding portfolios indicates increasing recognition of the importance of political and policy determinants in cancer control implementation [25].

As the field advances, several priorities emerge for strengthening determinant prioritization in cancer control. Implementation researchers should:

• Develop and validate brief, pragmatic measures of implementation constructs that can be readily incorporated into resource-constrained planning processes
• Conduct mechanistic studies to elucidate how implementation strategies produce their effects, enabling more precise matching to prioritized determinants
• Create decision-support tools that integrate capacity assessment data with determinant prioritization frameworks
• Establish learning collaboratives for sharing determinant prioritization approaches across countries and contexts

By addressing these priorities, the implementation science community can enhance the methodological rigor of determinant prioritization and ultimately improve the implementation effectiveness of National Cancer Control Plans worldwide.

From Theory to Practice: Methods and Tools for Assessing Implementation Determinants

Stakeholder Engagement Methods for Identifying Context-Specific Determinants

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

Common Problem: Difficulty Prioritizing Determinants

Q: Our team has identified a long list of potential implementation determinants using frameworks like CFIR. How do we prioritize which ones to target first with our limited resources?

A: This is a common challenge in implementation science. Instead of prioritizing based solely on what seems "feasible" to address, use these evidence-informed methods [2]:

• Apply the Prioritization Matrix: Use the following criteria to score and rank each determinant.

Determinant	Potential Impact on Implementation Success	Feasibility to Address	Stakeholder Consensus on Importance	Priority Score
e.g., Lack of clinician training	High	High	High	9 (Critical)
e.g., Cost of new equipment	High	Medium	Medium	6 (High)
e.g., Patient literacy levels	Medium	Low	Medium	3 (Medium)

• Engage Key Stakeholders in Scoring: Facilitate a workshop with representatives from key groups (clinicians, administrators, patients) to score determinants. This builds consensus and ensures you are prioritizing factors that stakeholders view as most critical [26].

Common Problem: Ineffective Strategy Selection

Q: We have prioritized our key determinants, but we are unsure which implementation strategies to select. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation offers many options, but the link to determinants is often unclear.

A: This problem stems from incomplete knowledge of implementation strategy mechanisms—the processes through which a strategy produces its effect [2]. To troubleshoot:

• Hypothesize the Mechanism: For each prioritized determinant, theorize what needs to change to overcome it. Then, select a strategy known to activate that mechanism.
• Reference Evidence-Based Examples:

Prioritized Determinant	Hypothesized Mechanism of Change	Potential Implementation Strategy
Barrier: Providers forget to perform new screening protocol.	Mechanism: A cue to action at the point of care.	Strategy: Clinical reminders [2].
Barrier: Low self-efficacy among nursing staff.	Mechanism: Building skills and confidence through practice.	Strategy: Conduct ongoing training and role-playing sessions.
Barrier: Lack of leadership buy-in.	Mechanism: Demonstrating the relative advantage and benefits.	Strategy: Capture and share local knowledge through pilot data and reports.

Common Problem: Insufficient Stakeholder Engagement

Q: Our project's stakeholder engagement feels superficial. We struggle to get meaningful input from stakeholders, and their feedback doesn't seem to influence project decisions.

A: Genuine engagement requires moving beyond a "tick-box" exercise [27].

• Diagnostic Checklist:
  • Are you engaging stakeholders early and throughout the project lifecycle? [26]
  • Are you using two-way communication methods (e.g., workshops, interviews) instead of one-way communication (e.g., newsletters)? [26]
  • Are you transparently demonstrating how stakeholder feedback has shaped project decisions? [27]
• The Fix: Develop a Structured Engagement Plan. Create a living document that outlines [27] [26]:
  • Stakeholder-Specific Communication: Tailor your message and methods to each stakeholder group (e.g., researchers, industry, policy makers, patients).
  • Clear Objectives: Define what you want to achieve with each engagement activity (e.g., gather feedback on a specific barrier, co-design a solution).
  • Feedback Loops: Implement a system to report back to stakeholders on how their input was used.

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Protocol 1: Stakeholder Identification and Categorization

Purpose: To systematically identify and categorize stakeholders for a cancer control implementation project, ensuring all relevant perspectives are included.

Materials:

• Project charter and documentation
• Access to key informants (e.g., clinical leads, patient advocates)
• Stakeholder Register (e.g., a spreadsheet or database)

Methodology [27] [26]:

• Initiate with SWOT/PESTEL Analysis: Conduct a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) and Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, Legal (PESTEL) analysis to understand the project's internal and external challenges.
• Brainstorm Stakeholder List: Assemble the project team and key informants. Brainstorm all individuals, groups, or organizations affected by or who can influence the project, using the SWOT/PESTEL analysis as a guide.
• Populate the Stakeholder Register: Collect and record the following data for each stakeholder in a structured register [26]:
  • Name and/or Organization
  • Contact Information
  • Profession/Role
  • Area (e.g., Research, Industry, Policy, Society)
  • Relationship to Project (Internal/External)
• Categorize into Priority Groups: Classify stakeholders based on their influence and interest in the project. This helps in allocating engagement efforts effectively. The following workflow diagram illustrates this classification and subsequent engagement process.

Protocol 2: Determinant Prioritization Workshop

Purpose: To facilitate a structured, collaborative session with project stakeholders to prioritize identified implementation determinants.

Materials:

• Pre-identified list of determinants (e.g., from interviews, surveys)
• Virtual or physical voting tools (e.g., polling software, sticky dots)
• Prioritization matrix template (see Table above)
• Facilitator and note-taker

Methodology:

• Preparation: Distribute the list of determinants to participants in advance.
• Introduction: Begin the workshop by explaining the goal: to focus resources on the factors most critical to implementation success.
• Scoring: Guide stakeholders through scoring each determinant based on agreed-upon criteria (e.g., Impact, Feasibility to Address). Use a scale of 1 (Low) to 3 (High).
• Calculation and Discussion: Calculate a priority score (e.g., sum of all criteria) and rank the determinants. Facilitate a discussion on the top-ranked determinants, allowing participants to advocate for adjustments based on clinical or contextual experience.
• Finalize: Document the final prioritized list and the rationale behind it.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Item	Function in Stakeholder Engagement & Implementation Research
Stakeholder Register	A central database (e.g., spreadsheet) to store contact information, roles, and classification of all stakeholders; essential for tracking and analysis [27] [26].
Determinants Framework	A structured taxonomy or checklist (e.g., Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research - CFIR) to systematically identify potential barriers and facilitators [2].
Stakeholder Engagement Plan	A living document that outlines objectives, strategies, and activities for engaging different stakeholder groups throughout the project lifecycle [27].
Data Processing Agreement	A legal document required to ensure conformity with data privacy policies (e.g., GDPR) when collecting and processing stakeholder data [26].
Prioritization Matrix	A decision-making tool (often a table) used to rank-order determinants or strategies based on pre-defined criteria such as impact and feasibility [2].

For researchers in cancer control, optimizing the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) is a grand challenge. EBIs could reduce cervical cancer deaths by 90%, colorectal cancer deaths by 70%, and lung cancer deaths by 95% if widely and effectively implemented [2]. However, implementation is often suboptimal. A critical phase in overcoming this is the initial assessment of the implementation context and stakeholder capacity, which allows for the precise matching of strategies to the determinants—the barriers and facilitators—that most significantly influence outcomes [2] [28]. This guide provides structured methodologies for conducting a situational analysis and capacity assessment, the foundational steps for prioritizing implementation determinants.

Troubleshooting Guide: Core Methodological Challenges

This section addresses common methodological issues encountered during the assessment of implementation contexts.

Problem: Data Saturation in Determinant Identification

• Question: During interviews or focus groups to identify implementation determinants, I am hearing the same points repeatedly. How can I determine when I have reached data saturation and can stop data collection?
• Answer: Data saturation is not merely about repetition but about the depth of understanding. To systematically assess saturation:
  • Track New Information: For each new interview or focus group, document the number of new barriers or facilitators mentioned.
  • Set a Threshold: A common methodological approach is to stop recruitment after two consecutive sessions yield no new determinants [2].
  • Analyze Quality: Ensure that saturation is assessed on high-priority, impactful determinants, not just minor details. Use a prioritization matrix (see Section 4) to weigh the importance of newly identified factors.

Problem: Differentiating Mediators from Moderators

• Question: In modeling the relationship between an implementation strategy and an outcome, how can I correctly distinguish a mediator from a moderator?
• Answer: Confusing these constructs is a common issue that can compromise the validity of your theoretical model. Use the following operational definitions [2]:
  • A Moderator is a factor that influences the strength or direction of the relationship between a strategy and an outcome. It is a contextual characteristic (e.g., clinic size, provider specialty) that is typically measured before the strategy is deployed. Ask: "For whom or under what conditions does this strategy work best?"
  • A Mediator is a mechanism through which a strategy produces its effect. It explains how or why the strategy works. Ask: "What changes as a result of the strategy that leads to the desired outcome?"

Problem: Low Response Rates for Determinant Surveys

• Question: The survey I distributed to clinic staff to identify barriers has a very low response rate. What are the most effective methods to improve engagement?
• Answer: Low response rates can introduce significant bias. To improve them:
  • Maximize Perceived Relevance: In your communication, explicitly state how the results will be used to directly improve their work environment and patient care.
  • Multi-Channel Recruitment: Use a combination of email, internal messaging systems, and brief announcements at staff meetings.
  • Reduce Burden: Ensure the survey is exceptionally brief and uses pragmatic, validated measures. Pilot-test the survey to ensure it takes less than 10 minutes to complete [2].
  • Leverage Leadership: Have clinic or department leaders endorse and promote the survey.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

General Concepts

• Q1: What is the ultimate goal of "optimizing" implementation in cancer control?

  • A: The goal, as pursued by centers like OPTICC (Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control), is to move beyond "implementation as usual." This involves developing efficient methods to identify the most critical implementation barriers, match them to strategies with known mechanisms of action, and refine those strategies to be the most effective, efficient, and cost-effective for a given context [2] [28].

• Q2: What is a key criticism of current methods for identifying implementation determinants?

  • A: Traditional methods like surveys and focus groups are subject to the limitations of self-report, including low participant insight, recall bias, and social desirability bias. Furthermore, they often generate a long list of determinants without providing clear methods for prioritizing which ones to actually target, leading to resource strain [2].

Assessment and Measurement

• Q3: Why is understanding an implementation strategy's "mechanism" so important?

  • A: A mechanism is the basis for a strategy's effect—the process or event responsible for the change it produces [2]. Knowing the mechanism (e.g., a clinical reminder works by providing a "cue to action") allows you to strategically match it to a specific barrier (e.g., provider forgetfulness), rather than selecting strategies through guesswork [2].

• Q4: What is the state of measurement for implementation constructs?

  • A: Measurement is a critical barrier. Systematic reviews indicate that few reliable, valid, and pragmatic measures exist for key constructs like determinants and mechanisms. Many available measures have unknown psychometric properties or lack the brevity and actionability required by implementers [2].

Capacity Assessment

• Q5: How is "decisional capacity" defined in a clinical context, and why is it relevant to research?

  • A: Decisional capacity is a patient's ability to understand, appreciate, reason, and communicate a choice about a specific treatment [29]. In research, assessing stakeholder (e.g., clinic manager, provider) capacity to adopt and deliver an EBI is equally crucial. It involves evaluating their understanding of the EBI, appreciation of its consequences for their workflow, and reasoning about its fit—a parallel concept that informs implementation planning [30].

• Q6: Are there structured tools for assessing capacity, and what are their limitations?

  • A: Yes, several tools exist, such as the Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE) and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). However, a recent systematic review found that these instruments are largely designed for specific treatment decisions and cannot be directly applied to complex contexts like assisted suicide requests without limitation or adjustment. This highlights a general need for context-specific assessment tools [30].

Experimental Protocols & Data Presentation

Protocol 1: Conducting a Situational Analysis for Determinant Identification

Aim: To systematically identify barriers and facilitators to implementing a specific evidence-based cancer control intervention (e.g., lung cancer screening) in a defined clinical setting.

Methodology:

• Mixed-Methods Approach: Combine qualitative and quantitative data collection to triangulate findings.
• Stakeholder Mapping: Identify and recruit key stakeholders (clinicians, administrators, patients, IT staff) representing all groups impacted by the EBI.
• Data Collection:
  • Semi-Structured Interviews: Conduct interviews (~30 minutes) using a guide based on a framework like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [2]. Probe on domains of intervention characteristics, outer and inner setting, and individual characteristics.
  • Focus Groups: Hold 2-3 focus groups with front-line staff to explore group dynamics and shared perceptions.
  • Brief Determinant Survey: Administer a short survey using existing, pragmatic measures of implementation determinants to quantify their perceived importance across the organization [2].
• Analysis:
  • Qualitative: Use rapid thematic analysis to code interview and focus group transcripts, categorizing findings into determinant themes.
  • Quantitative: Use descriptive statistics to rank-order determinants by frequency and perceived importance from the survey data.

Protocol 2: Structured Capacity Assessment of a Clinical Team

Aim: To assess a clinical team's capacity and readiness to implement a new colorectal cancer screening program.

Methodology:

• Develop Assessment Criteria: Adapt the four key elements of capacity [29]:
  • Understanding: The team's comprehension of the program's protocols and requirements.
  • Appreciation: Their belief in the program's relevance and benefits for their patient population.
  • Reasoning: Their ability to problem-solve and integrate the program into existing workflows.
  • Communication: Their ability to articulate a coherent plan for implementation.
• Structured Interview & Observation:
  • Conduct a group interview with key team members using a directed interview guide with questions tailored to the above criteria (e.g., "What do you believe will happen if this program is successfully implemented?") [29].
  • Observe a team meeting where the program is discussed to assess reasoning and communication dynamics.
• Use of a Formal Tool: Supplement with a structured assessment tool, such as a modified version of the Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE), to objectify the findings [30] [29].
• Synthesis: Integrate findings to generate a capacity profile, identifying areas of strength and specific capacity gaps that need to be addressed prior to implementation.

Quantitative Data Summaries

Table 1: Comparison of Formal Capacity Assessment Tools for Clinical Decisions (Adapted from [30])

Instrument (Abbreviation)	Format	Abilities Assessed	Duration	Key Psychometric Property
Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE)	Semi-structured interview	Understanding, Appreciation, (Reasoning)	10-20 min	Interrater reliability: 93% agreement (κ = 0.79)
Assessment of Capacity to Consent to Treatment (ACCT)	Semi-structured interview	Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, Evidencing a choice	Not Specified	Internal Consistency: Cronbach’s α = 0.96
Hopkins Competency Assessment Test (HCAT)	Written/Vignette-based	Understanding, Appreciation	~30 min	Evaluates generalized capacity rather than decision-specific capacity
MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool (MacCAT-T)	Semi-structured interview	Understanding, Appreciation, Reasoning, Evidencing a choice	15-20 min	High interrater reliability (r > 0.85)

Table 2: Prevalence of Decisional Incapacity in Various Populations (Data from [29])

Patient Population	Prevalence of Incapacity
Healthy older adults	2.8%
Inpatients on a medical ward	26%
Persons with Alzheimer disease (all stages)	54%
Persons with learning disabilities	68%

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Materials for Implementation Determinant Studies

Item / Solution	Function in Research
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)	A meta-theoretical framework providing a comprehensive taxonomy of constructs (determinants) that influence implementation effectiveness. Serves as a coding schema for qualitative data [2].
Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)	A behavior change framework synthesizing 14 domains from 33 psychological theories. Useful for identifying theoretical determinants of clinician and patient behavior [2].
Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)	A compiled list of 73 discrete implementation strategies. Used in the "matching" phase to identify potential strategies after determinants have been prioritized [2].
Pragmatic Measures	Brief, validated survey instruments designed for low burden and high actionability in real-world settings. Critical for obtaining quantitative data on determinants and outcomes without overburdening stakeholders [2].
Aid to Capacity Evaluation (ACE)	A semi-structured interview tool that provides an objective assessment of a patient's (or by analogy, a stakeholder's) capacity to make a specific decision. Improves accuracy in determining decision-making capacity [29].

Visualized Workflows

Determinant Identification & Prioritization Workflow

Capacity Assessment Logic Pathway

Quantitative and Mixed-Methods Approaches for Determinant Prioritization

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the core challenge in moving from determinant identification to prioritization in cancer control? A primary challenge is that typical data collection methods, such as surveys, focus groups, or interviews using general frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), often identify dozens of determinants. This makes it difficult to decide which ones to prioritize with limited resources. Methods for prioritizing these identified determinants are underdeveloped, and existing methods sometimes favor addressing determinants that are merely "feasible" rather than those with the greatest potential to undermine implementation [2].

Q2: How can a mixed-methods approach provide a more robust foundation for prioritization than a single-method study? A mixed-methods approach combines the breadth of quantitative data with the depth of qualitative insights, offering a more comprehensive picture. Quantitative data (e.g., from surveys or registry data) can identify statistical patterns and disparities in cancer outcomes across a catchment area. Qualitative data (e.g., from focus groups or interviews) then provides the "lived experience" and context to explain these patterns, revealing the underlying reasons for barriers and facilitators. This integrated understanding is crucial for defining meaningful priorities [31].

Q3: What is a specific, structured process for using mixed methods to reach a consensus on priorities? One effective process is an explanatory sequential mixed methods design followed by group concept mapping [31]:

• Phase 1: Gather and analyze existing quantitative data (e.g., cancer registry statistics) alongside new qualitative data (e.g., community focus groups).
• Phase 2: Use a group concept mapping process with stakeholders. This involves brainstorming, sorting ideas into themes, and rating their importance, which generates quantitative and qualitative data to build a consensus on priorities.
• Phase 3: Summarize and disseminate the findings to guide strategic planning.

Q4: Can the level of program implementation itself affect our understanding of determinants and outcomes? Yes. Research shows that a higher degree of program fidelity and reach is directly related to more positive participant outcomes, such as greater intention to be physically active or limit alcohol. Therefore, when evaluating determinants, it is critical to also assess implementation quality. The CFIR can be used to diagnose which specific constructs (e.g., Design Quality, Compatibility, Access to Knowledge) act as barriers or facilitators to high implementation, allowing for more precise prioritization [32].

Q5: How can social determinants of health (SDOH) be integrated into determinant prioritization for cancer control? SDOH are critical, multi-level factors that influence cancer outcomes and create disparities. A useful approach is to use a conceptual framework, such as the Multilevel Determinants of Cancer-related Outcomes Framework, which organizes SDOH into societal, environmental, and community levels. These interact with individual-level factors along the cancer care continuum. Quantifying the attribution of specific SDOH factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, healthcare access) to outcomes like cancer mortality can powerfully inform which upstream determinants to prioritize in implementation strategies to advance health equity [31] [33].

Troubleshooting Common Experimental & Methodological Problems

Problem 1: Overwhelming Number of Identified Determinants

Scenario: Your team has conducted 30 stakeholder interviews and identified over 50 potential barriers to implementing a new cancer screening program. Deciding where to focus is paralyzing.

Troubleshooting Step	Action & Rationale
Identify the Problem	Clearly state that the volume of qualitative data is hindering the selection of high-impact implementation strategies.
Diagnose the Cause	Recognize that common qualitative methods are excellent for identification but lack built-in, rigorous prioritization mechanisms [2].
Implement a Solution	Employ a structured prioritization method. • Group Concept Mapping: Engage stakeholders in sorting the 50 barriers into conceptual clusters and then rating each one for importance and feasibility. This mixed-method process quantitatively identifies which clusters are consensus priorities [31]. • Quantitative Rating: Follow up qualitative work with a survey where a larger group of stakeholders rates the importance of each determinant on a Likert scale. Prioritize those with the highest mean scores and lowest variance (indicating strong agreement) [34].

Problem 2: Disconnect Between Quantitative and Qualitative Data

Scenario: Your survey shows low physical activity rates among colorectal cancer survivors in a specific county, but your interviews reveal participants are highly motivated to be active. The data seem to conflict.

Troubleshooting Step	Action & Rationale
Identify the Problem	The problem is not conflicting data, but an incomplete explanatory model. The "why" behind the low activity rates is missing from the quantitative data.
Diagnose the Cause	The quantitative data describes what is happening, while the qualitative data provides a partial why (motivation is not the barrier). This signals that other contextual determinants are at play.
Implement a Solution	Use the qualitative data to probe deeper into the quantitative findings. Design subsequent interview questions to explore other potential barriers. For example: "We know many survivors want to be active, but our data shows it's difficult. What are the biggest practical obstacles you or others face?" This may reveal determinants like lack of safe walking paths, fatigue management challenges, or cost of gyms, thereby resolving the apparent conflict and revealing the true priorities [34].

Problem 3: Poor Program Fidelity Across Different Sites

Scenario: A community-based cancer prevention program is showing great outcomes in some locations but not others. You suspect inconsistent implementation is the cause.

Troubleshooting Step	Action & Rationale
Identify the Problem	The problem is variable program effectiveness, likely driven by differences in implementation fidelity and reach across sites [32].
Diagnose the Cause	Create an implementation score. Quantify fidelity by tracking delivery of core components and program attendance. Compare sites with "high" and "low" implementation scores. Then, use the CFIR to guide interviews with instructors at both types of sites to diagnose specific determinants (e.g., barriers like lack of appointed internal leaders vs. facilitators like compatible design) [32].
Implement a Solution	Address the identified CFIR-based barriers. If "Access to Knowledge and Information" is a barrier, create a just-in-time training resource. If "Compatibility" is low, work with sites to adapt the program packaging to better fit their workflow without compromising core components [32].

Experimental Protocols for Determinant Prioritization

Protocol 1: Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods for a Cancer Needs Assessment (CNA)

This protocol outlines a comprehensive, community-engaged approach to identify and prioritize cancer-related needs and determinants in a defined geographic catchment area [31].

1. Preliminary Step: Establish a Steering Committee

• Purpose: Ground the CNA in community insights, ensure representation, and build credibility.
• Action: Convene a committee of key stakeholders (e.g., from cancer centers, public health agencies, state cancer coalitions, patient advocacy groups, and community-based organizations) to provide input throughout all phases [31].

2. Phase 1: Data Collection - Quantitative and Qualitative

• Quantitative Component:
  • Objective: To assess the cancer burden and identify disparities.
  • Data Sources: Gather existing secondary data on cancer incidence, mortality, stage at diagnosis, and screening rates from state cancer registries and public health databases. Analyze this data by geographic, demographic, and social variables (e.g., county, race, rurality) to pinpoint quantitative priorities [31].
• Qualitative Component (Conducted Simultaneously):
  • Objective: To understand the "why" behind the numbers and identify context-specific determinants.
  • Methods: Conduct focus groups and individual interviews with community members, patients, and healthcare providers. Review existing hospital Community Health Needs Assessments (CHNAs). This reveals lived experiences, unmet needs, and barriers/facilitators not evident in quantitative data [31].

3. Phase 2: Data Integration and Prioritization via Group Concept Mapping

• Objective: To synthesize the data from Phase 1 and reach a consensus on priorities.
• Process: This is a structured, multi-step process with stakeholders:
  • Brainstorming: Generate a unified list of statements (needs, barriers) based on Phase 1 data.
  • Sorting: Participants sort these statements into thematic piles based on perceived similarity.
  • Rating: Participants rate each statement on importance and feasibility.
  • Analysis: Statistical analysis (multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis) creates "concept maps"—visual representations of the priority themes and their relationships. The ratings quantitatively identify which clusters are most important and actionable [31].

4. Phase 3: Dissemination and Action

• Objective: To translate priorities into action.
• Action: Create and disseminate a final CNA report. The findings should directly inform strategic planning, such as a state's Cancer Action Plan, a cancer center's research agenda, and community-based organization initiatives [31].

Protocol 2: Using the CFIR to Evaluate Implementation and Link Determinants to Outcomes

This protocol uses the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to diagnose implementation determinants and connect them to participant outcomes in an evidence-based program [32].

1. Quantitative Assessment of Implementation and Outcomes

• Measure Implementation: Create a quantitative implementation score for each program site based on fidelity (delivery of core components) and reach (program attendance). Categorize sites as "high" or "low" implementation [32].
• Measure Participant Outcomes: Collect pre-post data from participants on key outcomes (e.g., intention to change behavior, knowledge, self-efficacy, or actual screening rates) [32].
• Statistical Analysis: Test for a relationship between the degree of implementation (high vs. low) and participant outcomes using appropriate statistical models (e.g., mixed effects models). This establishes whether implementation quality matters for your program [32].

2. Qualitative Diagnosis of Determinants Using CFIR

• Data Collection: Conduct semi-structured interviews with program implementers (e.g., instructors, facilitators) from both high- and low-implementation sites.
• Interview Guide: Structure the guide around the CFIR domains: Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process [32] [35].
• Data Analysis:
  • Code Transcriptions: Code the interview transcripts deductively using the CFIR constructs.
  • Rate Constructs: For each CFIR construct, assign a rating (e.g., strong barrier, weak barrier, neutral, weak facilitator, strong facilitator) and note its valence [32].
  • Compare Across Groups: Identify which CFIR constructs consistently differ between high- and low-implementation sites. These are your key barriers and facilitators [32].

3. Interpretation and Action

• Synthesize Findings: Integrate the quantitative and qualitative results. For example: "Sites with low implementation scores cited a lack of 'Access to Knowledge and Information' (a CFIR barrier), and this was associated with poorer participant outcomes."
• Prioritize Strategies: Use this diagnostic information to select implementation strategies that directly target the most salient barriers and enhance the key facilitators identified.

Research Reagent Solutions: Key Frameworks & Tools

The following table details essential conceptual "reagents" for designing studies on determinant prioritization.

Tool/Framework Name	Primary Function	Brief Explanation & Application
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [32] [35]	Determinant Identification & Classification	A meta-framework of 39+ constructs across 5 domains that provides a comprehensive "checklist" of potential barriers and facilitators to implementation. Used to guide data collection and analysis.
Group Concept Mapping [31]	Structured Prioritization	A mixed-methods process that engages stakeholders to visually represent ideas as a cluster map. Provides quantitative data (ratings of importance/feasibility) to reach a consensus on priorities from a long list of ideas.
RE-AIM Framework [36]	Evaluation & Planning	Evaluates interventions across five dimensions: Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance. Helps define the scope of an implementation problem and identify which outcomes to measure.
Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design [31] [34]	Research Strategy	A study design where quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data collection to help explain or elaborate on the quantitative findings. Ideal for moving from "what" to "why."
Multilevel Determinants of Cancer-related Outcomes Framework [31]	Conceptual Model for SDOH	A framework that organizes Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) into societal, environmental, and community levels, illustrating their interaction with individual factors and the cancer care continuum.

Workflow Visualization: Determinant Prioritization

The diagram below outlines the logical flow of a mixed-methods approach for prioritizing implementation determinants.

This technical support center provides resources for researchers navigating the complexities of implementation science in cancer control. The following guides and FAQs address common methodological challenges in identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing implementation determinants.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is the practical difference between a barrier and a facilitator in implementation research? A1: In implementation science, a barrier is a factor that hinders the adoption or integration of an evidence-based intervention (EBI) into routine practice. Conversely, a facilitator is a factor that assists and supports this process [2]. For example, a lack of training is a common barrier to implementing a new screening guideline, while strong clinical champion support is a key facilitator.

Q2: Our team has identified dozens of determinants. How can we prioritize which ones to target? A2: It is common to identify more determinants than can be addressed. Underdeveloped methods for prioritization are a critical barrier in the field [2]. A recommended approach is to move beyond prioritizing only what seems "feasible" to address and instead focus on identifying the determinants with the greatest potential to undermine implementation success [2]. Methods for systematic prioritization are an active area of research, such as those being developed by the OPTICC Center [15].

Q3: What are the consequences of not using a structured framework to analyze determinants? A3: Without a structured framework, the analysis of determinants can be implicit and inconsistent. A scoping review of National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) found that while many plans incorporated elements like stakeholder engagement and situational analysis, these processes were often "unstructured and incomplete," potentially compromising the plan's effectiveness [6].

Q4: How can our research account for determinants that change across the cancer care continuum? A4: Determinants can vary significantly across the patient pathway, different healthcare settings, and geographical regions [6]. It is crucial to conduct a context-specific analysis at each stage of the continuum you are targeting (e.g., prevention, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship). Using a framework like the ERIC compilation, which provides a standardized set of implementation strategies, can help map determinants to specific contexts [6].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Incomplete Understanding of Local Context Problem: A proposed evidence-based intervention (EBI) for cervical cancer screening faced unexpected resistance from both providers and the community, despite being well-evidenced. Solution:

• Integrated Analysis: Conduct a structured analysis that aligns top-down (strategic, leadership) and bottom-up (frontline staff, patient) perspectives. This ensures that implementation efforts are relevant at both the organizational and operational levels [37].
• Stakeholder Engagement: Employ systematic, not ad-hoc, stakeholder engagement. This involves engaging a diverse group—including organizational leaders, clinical staff, and consumer advocates—throughout the strategy development process to identify all relevant barriers and facilitators [6] [37].
• Method: Use qualitative methods like semi-structured interviews and focus groups, guided by implementation science frameworks, to gather in-depth insights [37].

Issue: Overwhelming Number of Identified Determinants Problem: A study to scale up colorectal cancer screening identified over 40 potential determinants through initial surveys and interviews, making it impossible to address all of them. Solution:

• Adopt a Multi-Stage Optimization Approach: Instead of trying to address all determinants at once, use a structured process to prioritize [2].
• Sample Protocol:
  • Identify: Use mixed methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, observation) to create a comprehensive list of determinants [2].
  • Prioritize: Use a consensus method with key stakeholders to rank determinants based on their potential impact and feasibility to address. Move beyond just "feasible" ones to those with the greatest influence [2].
  • Match: Match the highest-priority determinants to implementation strategies with known or hypothesized mechanisms of action [2] [15].

Research Reagents & Frameworks

The table below outlines key "research reagents"—theories, models, and frameworks—essential for conducting rigorous determinant mapping.

Item Name	Type	Primary Function in Determinant Mapping
Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [6]	Compilation of Strategies	Provides a standardized set of 73 implementation strategies to help map and address specific, identified determinants.
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [2]	Determinants Framework	Offers a menu of 39 constructs across five domains (e.g., intervention characteristics, inner setting) to systematically identify potential barriers and facilitators.
Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) [2]	Determinants Framework	A behavioral science framework used to identify barriers and facilitators related to clinician and provider behavior change.
Organizational Priority Setting Framework & APEASE [37]	Prioritization Tool	A synthesized framework used to formally prioritize potential implementation research projects or strategies based on organizational fit and feasibility.

Experimental Protocols for Determinant Mapping

Protocol 1: Scoping Review of National Plans to Assess Determinant Integration

This protocol is adapted from a study analyzing the application of implementation science domains in National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) [6].

• Research Question Formulation: Define a clear question, e.g., "How have implementation science domains been applied in NCCPs from resource-constrained settings?" [6]
• Document Identification: Identify relevant policy documents from international repositories like the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) portal [6].
• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Set clear criteria (e.g., country HDI category, language, document type) [6].
• Data Charting: Develop a standardized data extraction form in a tool like Microsoft Excel. Code data into pre-defined implementation domains (e.g., stakeholder engagement, situational analysis, capacity assessment) [6].
• Thematic Analysis: Analyze the extracted data to identify themes and patterns in how determinants were addressed or overlooked [6].
• Expert Validation: Purposively select implementation science experts to review findings, assess policy relevance, and refine conclusions [6].

Protocol 2: Multi-Method Determinant Identification and Prioritization

This protocol aligns with the approach of implementation science centers like OPTICC, which aim to develop better methods for identifying and prioritizing determinants [2] [15].

• Preliminary Identification:
  • Surveys & Focus Groups: Use structured surveys (e.g., based on CFIR or TDF) and focus groups with providers and administrators to gather initial data on perceived determinants [2].
  • Limitation Awareness: Acknowledge that these self-report methods can be subject to low recall, low insight, or social desirability bias [2].
• Data Triangulation: Augment self-report data with direct observation or audit of clinical workflows to identify EBI- or setting-specific determinants that may go undetected in interviews [2].
• Stakeholder Prioritization Workshop: Convene a group of key stakeholders (clinicians, administrators, implementation scientists, patients). Present the compiled list of determinants and use a structured ranking or consensus method to prioritize them based on impact and strategic importance [37].
• Strategy Matching: Use the ERIC compilation or other tools to match the highest-priority determinants to potential implementation strategies [6] [2].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for a multi-method approach to mapping and addressing determinants, from initial identification to sustained implementation.

Determinant Mapping and Implementation Workflow

The following diagram maps how different types of determinants can be conceptually organized across the cancer control continuum, showing their relationship to health system building blocks.

Determinants Across the Cancer Continuum

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is the primary purpose of characterizing implementation context in cancer control research? A: Characterizing implementation context helps researchers identify the organizational settings, external influences, and specific circumstances that affect how successfully a cancer control intervention can be adopted, implemented, and sustained in real-world settings. This is critical for prioritizing implementation determinants.

Q: Which tools can I use to quantitatively assess organizational readiness for implementation? A: The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) questionnaire and the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) instrument are two validated tools widely used for this purpose. Key metrics from these tools are summarized in the table below.

Q: How do I select the most appropriate framework for my study? A: Selection should be based on your research phase and the determinants you wish to prioritize. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is excellent for pre-implementation mapping of barriers and facilitators, while the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) is more suited for understanding individual-level behavioral determinants.

Q: My data on context is largely qualitative. How can I structure it for analysis? A: You can use a mixed-methods approach. Start with qualitative data collection (e.g., interviews, focus groups), then code the data into predefined domains from a framework like CFIR. The resulting data can be quantified into matrices for further analysis, a process outlined in the experimental workflow diagram.

Q: What are common pitfalls when mapping implementation determinants? A: A common pitfall is failing to establish a clear logical relationship between identified determinants and the implementation strategies designed to address them. Using a logic model or pathway diagram, as provided in the signaling pathways section, can help mitigate this.

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Low response rates on organizational surveys.

• Potential Cause: Survey fatigue among clinical staff; survey is too long or complex.
• Solution: Shorten the instrument by using only key sub-scales. Secure executive sponsorship from the clinical site to encourage participation. Offer individualized feedback reports as an incentive.

Issue: Difficulty distinguishing between inner and outer setting determinants.

• Potential Cause: Overlap in definitions; the organizational boundary of the study is unclear.
• Solution: Clearly define the "organization" under study at the project's outset. The outer setting is everything external that influences the organization (e.g., national policies, payer contracts), while the inner setting comprises factors within the organization itself (e.g., culture, resources).

Issue: Data from different sources (quantitative surveys vs. qualitative interviews) appear contradictory.

• Potential Cause: Different methods capture different levels of reality; quantitative data may show "what" is happening, while qualitative data explains "why."
• Solution: Use a triangulation protocol. Do not view the data as contradictory, but as complementary. Actively seek explanations for the apparent discrepancies, as they often reveal nuanced insights about the context.

Issue: Overwhelming number of identified determinants, making prioritization difficult.

• Potential Cause: Lack of a predefined criteria for prioritization.
• Solution: Use a structured prioritization method. The "CFIR-ERIC Implementation Strategy Matching Tool" can be helpful. Alternatively, use a simple prioritization matrix to score determinants based on their perceived strength of influence and mutability, as detailed in the experimental protocol below.

Data Presentation: Key Implementation Context Assessment Tools

The following table summarizes quantitative data from commonly used instruments for characterizing implementation context [38] [39].

Table 1: Quantitative Tools for Assessing Implementation Determinants

Tool Name	Core Constructs Measured	Sample Items / Metrics	Response Scale / Data Type	Typical Admin Time
Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC)	Change Commitment, Change Efficacy	"People who work here are committed to implementing this change."	5-point Likert (Disagree-Agree)	10 minutes
Implementation Climate Scale (ICS)	Focus on Excellence, Educational Support, Recognition	"The good work of staff is recognized in this organization."	5-point Likert (Disagree-Agree)	15 minutes
Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD)	Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring	"I can see the potential value of this intervention for my work."	5-point Likert (Disagree-Agree)	10 minutes
Organizational Culture & Context Assessment Tool (ORCC)	Proficiency, Rigidity, Resistance	Composite scores for each dimension derived from multiple items.	Continuous scores (0-100)	20 minutes

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Mixed-Methods Assessment of Implementation Context Using the CFIR Framework

1. Objective: To comprehensively identify and prioritize barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer control intervention within a specific healthcare system.

2. Materials:

• See "The Scientist's Toolkit" for research reagents.
• Audio recorder and transcription service.
• Statistical software (e.g., R, SPSS).
• Qualitative data analysis software (e.g., NVivo, Dedoose).

3. Methodology:

• Step 1: Pre-Study Framing. Define the intervention and the boundaries of the implementation site. Select the relevant CFIR domains and constructs for focus.
• Step 2: Data Collection.
  • Qualitative: Conduct semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders (clinicians, administrators, patients). Use an interview guide structured around CFIR constructs.
  • Quantitative: Administer surveys (e.g., from Table 1) to a larger sample to quantify key constructs like readiness and climate.
• Step 3: Data Analysis.
  • Qualitative: Transcribe interviews. Conduct a directed content analysis by coding data into the pre-selected CFIR constructs. Analyze for themes within each construct.
  • Quantitative: Calculate composite scores for survey scales. Perform descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations).
• Step 4: Data Integration and Prioritization. Create a convergence matrix displaying both qualitative themes and quantitative scores for each CFIR construct. Hold a consensus meeting with the research team to prioritize determinants based on strength of evidence (from both data sources) and perceived mutability.

4. Expected Output: A prioritized list of implementation determinants to guide the selection of implementation strategies.

Mandatory Visualization

The following diagrams were generated using Graphviz's DOT language, adhering to the specified color palette and contrast rules. Text and arrow colors have been explicitly set to ensure high contrast against their backgrounds [38] [40] [39].

Diagram 1: Determinant Prioritization Workflow

Diagram 2: Context-to-Strategy Logic Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for Characterizing Implementation Context

Item / Reagent	Function / Application in Research
Semi-Structured Interview Guide	A flexible protocol for qualitative data collection, ensuring key topics (based on frameworks like CFIR or TDF) are covered while allowing for participant-driven insights.
Validated Survey Instruments	Pre-tested questionnaires (e.g., ORIC, ICS) used to quantitatively measure specific implementation constructs from a larger sample in a standardized way.
Coding Manual	A detailed codebook defining framework constructs (e.g., CFIR definitions) with inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure reliability during qualitative data analysis.
Data Triangulation Matrix	A structured table (e.g., in Excel or NVivo) used to visually display and compare findings from different data sources (qualitative vs. quantitative) for each determinant.
Consensus Meeting Guide	A facilitated protocol for research team meetings to discuss, debate, and formally score or rank the importance of identified implementation determinants.

Overcoming Critical Barriers: Strategies for Optimizing Determinant Prioritization

Addressing Common Challenges in Determinant Identification and Validation

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What are the most common critical barriers in identifying implementation determinants for cancer control? Research highlights several persistent methodological barriers. These include underdeveloped methods for barrier identification, an incomplete understanding of implementation strategy mechanisms, the underutilization of methods for optimizing strategies, and poor measurement of implementation constructs [15]. These gaps can lead to strategies that are mismatched to context, reducing their real-world impact.

Q2: How can a structured framework improve the determinant identification process? Using a structured implementation science framework, such as those recommended by the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), provides a standardized approach [6]. It ensures key domains are assessed systematically, including stakeholder engagement, situational analysis, and capacity assessment. This moves the process beyond unstructured or subjective selection of determinants based on personal preference, leading to more robust and replicable findings [6] [15].

Q3: Our team often struggles with stakeholder engagement. What does best practice look like? Many national cancer control plans describe stakeholder engagement, but it is often unstructured and incomplete [6]. Best practice involves a purposive, structured process that engages relevant stakeholders at every stage of strategy development—from initial situational analysis to planning and evaluation. This is crucial for identifying context-specific, relevant determinants and ensuring the resulting strategies are feasible and equitable [6].

Q4: How can we better integrate policy as a determinant or context in our analysis? Policy can be conceptualized in multiple ways: as a determinant (context to understand), as something to adopt or implement, or as a strategy itself [25]. A comprehensive analysis should consider policies at multiple levels (organizational, local, state, federal) and define them explicitly as a plan or course of action carried out through law, rule, or code [25]. Most research has focused on policy in prevention; opportunities exist to expand this to diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship.

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: Incomplete or Superficial Situational Analysis

Problem: The initial assessment of the implementation context fails to capture critical barriers and facilitators, leading to a flawed determinant framework.

Solution:

• Conduct a multi-faceted situational analysis. Do not rely on a single source of information [6].
• Use the health system building blocks (e.g., workforce, financing, service delivery) as a scaffold to systematically map determinants [6].
• Explicitly assess health system capacity to determine readiness for implementing new interventions, a step often missed in planning [6].

Validation Protocol:

• Triangulate data from stakeholder interviews, document reviews, and existing datasets.
• Present findings to a representative stakeholder group for feedback and confirmation (face validity).
• Pilot test a draft of your determinant survey or interview guide with a small group to check for clarity and relevance.

Issue: Underdeveloped Methods for Barrier Identification

Problem: The process for identifying implementation barriers is ad hoc, not rigorous, and fails to prioritize the most critical determinants.

Solution:

• Embrace innovative and economical methods for optimizing the identification process, moving beyond "implementation as usual" [15].
• Match identification methods to contextual factors rather than personal preference [15].
• Prioritize barriers based on their perceived impact and mutability (e.g., how easy they are to change) to focus efforts.

Workflow for Barrier Prioritization: The diagram below outlines a systematic workflow for moving from a broad list of determinants to a prioritized set for action.

Issue: Poor Measurement of Implementation Constructs

Problem: Determinants are identified but measured with poor reliability or validity, compromising the entire research process.

Solution:

• Use established, validated instruments wherever possible.
• If creating new items, follow a rigorous process of defining the construct, developing items, and testing for psychometric properties.
• Ensure measurement accounts for multi-level influences (e.g., individual, organizational, system-level).

Validation Experiment Protocol:

• Objective: To assess the reliability and face validity of a survey instrument for measuring implementation determinants.
• Methods:
  • Cognitive Interviews: Conduct interviews with 5-10 participants from the target audience. After completing the survey, ask probes like, "Can you repeat that question in your own words?" and "What was your thought process for answering?"
  • Test-Retest Reliability: Administer the same survey to the same group of 15-20 stakeholders approximately two weeks apart. Calculate the correlation or agreement between the two scores for each item.
• Key Outcomes:
  • Refined survey items with improved clarity.
  • Quantitative reliability metrics (e.g., Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) or Cohen's Kappa) for each determinant measure.

The table below summarizes the quantitative benchmarks for a successful validation study.

Metric	Target Benchmark	Measurement Tool	Interpretation
Internal Consistency	Cronbach's Alpha > 0.70	Statistical software (e.g., R, SPSS)	Indicates items measuring the same construct are closely related.
Test-Retest Reliability	ICC > 0.70	Intraclass Correlation Coefficient	Measures stability of responses over time when no change is expected.
Inter-rater Reliability	Kappa > 0.61 (Substantial)	Cohen's Kappa	Assesses agreement between different raters assessing the same context.
Face Validity Score	> 80% positive feedback	Structured stakeholder feedback form	Confirms the instrument appears to measure what it claims to.

Issue: Failure to Conceptualize Policy as a Multi-faceted Determinant

Problem: The influence of policy is overlooked or oversimplified in determinant frameworks.

Solution:

• Explicitly code for policy's role in your research. Is it the context (a surrounding condition), the object (something to be adopted/implemented), or a strategy (a tool to drive change)? [25].
• Investigate policy at all levels, not just federal. Organizational and state-level policies are often highly influential [25].

Methodology for Policy Determinant Mapping:

• Data Collection: Review relevant policy documents, laws, and organizational guidelines. Conduct key informant interviews with policymakers and implementers.
• Coding Framework: Use a pre-specified codebook based on established definitions of policy [25]. For each policy identified, code its:
  • Level (Organizational, Local, State, Federal)
  • Type (Law, Regulation, Procedure, Incentive)
  • Conceptual Role (Context, Object, Strategy)
• Integration: Map these coded policies into your overall determinant framework to visualize their influence across different levels.

The Scientist's Toolkit

The table below details key methodological solutions for determinant identification and validation.

Research Reagent / Solution	Function & Application in Determinant Work
Structured Implementation Science Frameworks (e.g., ERIC)	Provides a standardized set of domains and constructs to guide a systematic, rather than ad-hoc, determinant identification process [6].
Validated Construct Surveys	Offers reliable and valid instruments for measuring specific implementation determinants (e.g., feasibility, acceptability), ensuring data quality and comparability across studies.
Stakeholder Engagement Protocols	A structured guide for engaging patients, providers, and policymakers to ensure the determinants identified are relevant and context-specific, moving beyond incomplete engagement [6].
Policy Coding Codebook	A tool based on established definitions to systematically categorize policy-related determinants by their level, type, and conceptual role (context, object, strategy) in the study [25].
Barrier Prioritization Matrix	A visual tool (e.g., 2x2 grid of Impact vs. Feasibility) to help research teams and stakeholders collaboratively focus on the most critical determinants to address.

Methods for Matching Implementation Strategies to Prioritized Barriers

In cancer control research, even the most effective evidence-based interventions (EBIs) fail when implementation strategies are not properly matched to contextual barriers. Effective matching ensures that the methods used to support implementation truly address the key barriers in specific settings where cancer control occurs. When strategies are mismatched, implementation becomes suboptimal, leading to reduced impact of interventions that could otherwise prevent up to 95% of lung cancer deaths, 70% of colorectal cancer deaths, and 90% of cervical cancer deaths if widely and effectively implemented [2] [15].

This technical support guide addresses the critical challenge of matching implementation strategies to prioritized barriers—a process often described as a "black box" with limited practical guidance, particularly in community settings [41]. The following sections provide troubleshooting guidance and methodological support for researchers navigating this complex aspect of implementation science.

Fundamental Concepts and Frameworks

Key Terminology in Strategy Matching

Table 1: Core Implementation Science Concepts Relevant to Strategy Matching

Term	Definition	Relevance to Strategy Matching
Determinant	Barriers or facilitators of implementing a new clinical practice [2]	The primary targets for strategy selection
Mechanism	Basis for an implementation strategy's effect—processes or events responsible for change produced by strategies [2]	Understanding how strategies work enables better matching
Precondition	Factor necessary for an implementation mechanism to be activated [2]	Must be present for strategies to function effectively
Implementation Outcome	Outcome that the implementation processes intend to achieve (e.g., adoption, fidelity) [2]	Measures success of matched strategies

Critical Barriers to Optimal Matching

Research identifies four critical barriers that implementation scientists must overcome when matching strategies to determinants [3] [2] [15]:

• Underdeveloped Methods for Determinant Identification: Current approaches often identify more determinants than can be addressed with available resources, with limited methods for prioritization [2].
• Incomplete Knowledge of Strategy Mechanisms: The processes through which implementation strategies produce their effects remain largely unknown, making matching guesswork [2].
• Underutilization of Optimization Methods: The jump from pilot studies to randomized controlled trials leaves little room for optimizing strategy delivery [2].
• Poor Measurement of Implementation Constructs: Implementers lack reliable, valid, pragmatic measures to identify determinants and assess mechanism activation [2].

Methodological Approaches and Protocols

The OPTICC Three-Stage Optimization Approach

The Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC) Center has developed a structured three-stage approach to matching and optimizing implementation strategies [2]:

Stage I: Identify and Prioritize Determinants

Experimental Protocol: Determinant Identification and Prioritization

Objective: Systematically identify and prioritize implementation determinants to determine which barriers should be targeted with implementation strategies.

Materials Needed:

• Determinant frameworks (CFIR, TDF)
• Data collection tools (interview guides, surveys)
• Recording and transcription equipment
• Qualitative analysis software (NVivo, Dedoose)
• Prioritization matrix templates

Procedure:

• Conduct Contextual Inquiry: Use mixed methods to identify barriers and facilitators:
  • Perform semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (clinicians, administrators, patients)
  • Conduct focus groups with implementation staff
  • Administer determinant surveys using validated instruments [2]
• Analyze and Code Data:
  • Transcribe audio recordings verbatim
  • Code data using determinant frameworks (CFIR domains or TDF domains)
  • Identify thematic patterns across participants
• Prioritize Determinants:
  • Use card sorting activities to group determinants by importance [41]
  • Rate barriers by changeability and importance using a 2×2 grid [41]
  • Apply nominal group techniques for stakeholder consensus [41]

Troubleshooting:

• If identifying too many determinants, use feasibility-impact matrices to focus on high-priority targets
• If stakeholders disagree on priorities, employ Delphi methods to build consensus

Stage II: Match Strategies to Prioritized Determinants

Experimental Protocol: ISAC Match Process

Objective: Select implementation strategies that address prioritized determinants using a systematic matching process.

Materials Needed:

• ISAC compilation of implementation strategies [41]
• ERIC compilation for clinical settings
• Matching guidance tools
• Strategy selection worksheets

Procedure:

• Identify Existing Strategies:
  • Engage with practitioners to catalog strategies already in use [41]
  • Review organizational materials and implementation plans
  • Document informal implementation supports
• Select New Strategies:
  • Use ISAC guidance tool to select strategies by determinant framework level [41]
  • Apply ISAC guidance tool to select strategies by RE-AIM implementation outcomes [41]
  • Generate a comprehensive list of potential strategies
• Prioritize Strategies:
  • Rate strategies by feasibility and importance using surveys or 2×2 grids [41]
  • Assign priority points to potential strategies (e.g., 100 points distributed) [41]
  • Use nominal group techniques for final selection [41]

Troubleshooting:

• If strategies seem misaligned with determinants, examine strategy mechanisms to ensure logical fit
• If resource constraints limit options, focus on adapting existing strategies rather than creating new ones

Stage III: Optimize Strategy Configuration

Experimental Protocol: Strategy Tailoring and Optimization

Objective: Refine and tailor implementation strategies to fit local context and maximize effectiveness.

Materials Needed:

• Strategy specification templates
• User-centered design tools
• Rapid prototyping materials
• Implementation outcome measures

Procedure:

• Tailor Strategies:
  • Use brainwriting premortem process to identify potential reasons strategies would fail [41]
  • Apply liberating structures to generate adaptation ideas [41]
  • Conduct iterative prototyping of strategy components
• Optimize Strategy Packages:
  • Use multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) principles to test individual components [2]
  • Apply user-centered design to refine strategy delivery formats [2]
  • Conduct rapid cycles of testing and refinement
• Specify Final Strategy Protocol:
  • Document strategy components using standardized specifications
  • Define mechanism-based proximal outcomes
  • Establish fidelity assessment procedures

Troubleshooting:

• If strategies are too complex, use component analysis to identify essential elements
• If implementation burden is high, streamline strategy delivery while maintaining active ingredients

Troubleshooting Common Experimental Challenges

FAQ: Addressing Common Strategy Matching Problems

Q1: How do we handle situations where we identify more determinants than we can realistically address?

A: This common challenge requires systematic prioritization. Use a two-dimensional matrix rating determinants by both importance and changeability. Focus initially on determinants rated as both highly important and highly changeable. Additionally, consider which determinants serve as preconditions for addressing other barriers—prioritizing these can create cascade effects [2] [41].

Q2: What should we do when available strategy compilations (like ERIC) use language that doesn't fit our community setting?

A: The ISAC compilation was specifically developed for this challenge, with 40% of its strategies unique to community settings beyond what's available in clinical compilations like ERIC. When working in community settings, begin with ISAC and supplement with ERIC strategies only when relevant. Adapt strategy language to match local terminology while preserving core functions [41].

Q3: How can we better understand strategy mechanisms to improve matching?

A: Mechanism research remains underdeveloped, but you can hypothesize mechanisms by examining why a strategy might work in your context. Create "mechanism maps" that link strategy components to determinants through hypothesized processes of change. Test these mechanism hypotheses by measuring proximal outcomes that should change if the mechanism is active [2].

Q4: What approaches work when traditional determinant identification methods (interviews, surveys) aren't revealing actionable barriers?

A: Consider alternative methods that overcome limitations of self-report, which can be affected by low recognition, low saliency, and low disclosure. Rapid ethnographic approaches can reveal unarticulated barriers. Also try "behavioral mapping" that observes implementation challenges directly rather than relying on participant reports [2].

Q5: How do we balance fidelity to evidence-based strategies with the need to adapt them to local context?

A: Distinguish between strategy core components (which must be preserved) and adaptable periphery. Use concept mapping with stakeholders to identify which elements are essential versus customizable. Document all adaptations using FRAME framework to maintain replicability while allowing contextual fit [41].

Research Reagents and Tools

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Strategy Matching Experiments

Tool/Resource	Function	Access Point
ISAC Compilation	Provides community-appropriate implementation strategies with matching guidance	[41]
ERIC Compilation	Offers comprehensive clinical implementation strategies (supplemental use)	[41]
CFIR Framework	Guides determinant identification and categorization across multiple domains	[2] [42]
ISAC Match Process	Four-step method for selecting and tailoring strategies in community settings	[41]
Outer Setting Data Resource	Assesses community-level contextual factors affecting implementation	[42]
Mechanism Mapping Template	Links strategies to determinants through hypothesized processes of change	[2]

Advanced Methodological Considerations

Addressing Health Equity in Strategy Matching

Strategy matching processes must explicitly consider health equity implications. The outer setting—including social determinants of health—significantly influences implementation success but is frequently overlooked. Systematic assessment of community-level factors such as food environments, economic conditions, social contexts, and healthcare access is essential for equitable implementation [42].

Measuring Matching Success

Effective strategy matching requires robust measurement of both implementation outcomes and mechanism activation. Proximal outcomes—the most immediate, observable products in the causal pathway—provide critical feedback about whether strategies are functioning as hypothesized [2].

Table 3: Implementation Outcomes and Measurement Approaches

Outcome Category	Specific Measures	Assessment Methods
Proximal Outcomes	Mechanism activation, intermediate changes	Brief surveys, behavioral observations, process tracking
Implementation Outcomes	Adoption, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability	Implementation logs, stakeholder surveys, fidelity checklists
Service Outcomes	Efficiency, safety, effectiveness, equity	Service data, clinical records, patient outcomes
Client Outcomes	Satisfaction, functioning, symptom reduction	Patient-reported outcomes, clinical assessments

Future Directions and Innovation

The OPTICC Center and other implementation science initiatives are working to advance methods for strategy matching through several innovative approaches [2]:

• Developing better methods for identifying and prioritizing determinants beyond traditional self-report approaches
• Elucidating strategy mechanisms to move beyond guesswork in matching
• Applying optimization methods like multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) to improve strategy efficiency
• Advancing measurement of implementation constructs through reliable, valid, pragmatic measures

As these innovations mature, researchers will have increasingly sophisticated tools for matching implementation strategies to prioritized barriers, ultimately improving the impact of cancer control interventions across diverse populations and settings.

Implementation science provides structured methods to integrate evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into routine care, a process particularly critical in resource-limited settings. Adaptive implementation frameworks are specifically designed to maximize efficiency and impact when financial, human, and technical resources are constrained. These approaches allow researchers and practitioners to modify strategies based on accumulating data without compromising scientific integrity [43].

The core value proposition of adaptive implementation lies in its flexibility. Unlike traditional linear implementation models, adaptive frameworks permit protocol modifications in response to interim data, potentially reducing development times and resource requirements while maintaining methodological rigor. This approach is especially valuable in cancer control research, where evidence-based interventions could reduce cervical cancer deaths by 90%, colorectal cancer deaths by 70%, and lung cancer deaths by 95% if widely and effectively implemented [2].

Table: Key Advantages of Adaptive Approaches in Resource-Limited Settings

Advantage	Traditional Approach	Adaptive Approach	Resource Impact
Development Timeline	Sequential phases (I, II, III) with separate protocols	Single protocol with seamless phase transitions	Reduces time by 30-50% [43]
Patient Numbers	Fixed, often larger sample sizes	Smaller samples through ongoing optimization	Fewer patients needed, limiting exposure [43]
Regulatory Burden	Multiple approvals for each phase	Single protocol approval process	Decreases administrative costs [43]
Resource Allocation	Fixed resource allocation regardless of interim results	Dynamic allocation based on accumulating data	Prevents waste on ineffective arms [43]

Determinant Prioritization Methodology

Understanding Implementation Determinants

Implementation determinants are barriers or facilitators that influence the successful integration of evidence-based practices into routine care. In resource-limited cancer control settings, dozens of potential determinants may exist, complicating decisions about which to prioritize with limited implementation resources [2]. These determinants can include provider knowledge, organizational readiness, financial constraints, patient beliefs, and policy environments.

Traditional determinant identification methods—including interviews, focus groups, and surveys using frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)—are subject to limitations including low participant insight, recall bias, and social desirability effects. Moreover, these methods often identify more determinants than can be practically addressed with available resources, creating the need for systematic prioritization [2].

A Structured Prioritization Process

The Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC) program has developed a three-stage approach to addressing implementation challenges: (I) identify and prioritize determinants, (II) match strategies to prioritized determinants, and (III) optimize strategy deployment [2]. This process is particularly valuable in resource-constrained environments where strategic resource allocation is essential.

Table: Determinant Prioritization Criteria for Resource-Limited Settings

Prioritization Criteria	Assessment Method	Resource Considerations
Magnitude of Impact	Estimate effect size on implementation outcomes	Focus on determinants with greatest potential to undermine implementation [2]
Modifiability	Evaluate feasibility of addressing the determinant	Prioritize determinants that can be changed with available resources [2]
Leverage Potential	Assess how addressing one determinant affects others	Select determinants that create cascading positive effects [37]
Stakeholder Importance	Rate perceived importance by clinicians, patients	Ensure alignment with local values and priorities [37]
Cost to Address	Estimate resources required for mitigation	Favor determinants addressable within budget constraints [44]

Technical Guide: Determinant Prioritization Process

Strategy Matching and Optimization

Matching Strategies to Determinants

Once determinants are prioritized, the next critical step is matching them with appropriate implementation strategies. The science of strategy matching is currently limited by incomplete knowledge of implementation strategy mechanisms—the processes through which strategies produce their effects. Without understanding these mechanisms, matching strategies to determinants becomes largely guesswork [2].

In resource-limited settings, strategy selection must consider not only effectiveness but also feasibility, cost, and sustainability. Adaptive implementation approaches allow for testing different strategy configurations to identify the most efficient combination. This is particularly important because multi-component strategies evaluated in traditional randomized controlled trials provide limited information about which components drive effects or whether all components are necessary [2].

Optimization Methods for Constrained Environments

The OPTICC program leverages multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) principles, user-centered design, and agile science to optimize implementation strategies. This approach is more efficient than traditional pilot-to-RCT pathways because it systematically identifies which strategy components are active ingredients and how they can be delivered most efficiently [2].

Technical Support Center: FAQs & Troubleshooting

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How can we implement adaptive designs with limited statistical expertise and technology infrastructure?

A: Adaptive implementation in resource-limited settings requires pragmatic solutions rather than perfect systems. For data capture, consider open-source electronic data capture systems like OpenClinica, which are more affordable than commercial options [43]. For interim analyses, establish a data monitoring committee with both local and international experts to build capacity while maintaining rigor. Statistical support can be accessed through academic partnerships where local researchers collaborate with statisticians from research-intensive institutions [43].

Q: What are the most common pitfalls in determinant prioritization and how can we avoid them?

A: Common pitfalls include: (1) prioritizing too many determinants, which dilutes resources; (2) favoring modifiable over impactful determinants; and (3) insufficient stakeholder engagement. To avoid these, use structured prioritization criteria (see Table 2), limit focus to 3-5 top determinants, and engage diverse stakeholders throughout the process [2] [37]. Transparent processes with clear documentation of how and why determinants were prioritized also improve validity and stakeholder buy-in [37].

Q: How can we adapt implementation strategies when facing staff shortages and high turnover?

A: Task-sharing models have proven effective in these scenarios. Cross-train staff to assume multiple roles and develop simplified protocols that can be implemented by various team members [44]. Implement just-in-time training using mobile technology to onboard new staff quickly. Consider rotating staff across clinics to distribute expertise and prevent burnout in high-demand areas [44]. Building implementation protocols that are resilient to staff changes is essential in resource-limited settings.

Q: What minimum technological infrastructure is needed for adaptive implementation?

A: The core requirements include: (1) reliable data capture (electronic or paper-based with rapid entry), (2) capacity for interim data analysis, and (3) communication channels for implementing adaptations. While interactive voice response systems and advanced electronic data capture are ideal, lower-tech solutions like centralized randomization through a dedicated phone line or basic database systems can be effective alternatives [43].

Troubleshooting Common Implementation Challenges

Table: Troubleshooting Guide for Adaptive Implementation

Challenge	Possible Causes	Solutions	Resource-Saving Approach
Insufficient stakeholder engagement	Limited understanding of benefits, inadequate communication, perceived burden	Early engagement, clear value proposition, tailored communication channels	Leverage existing community structures and leaders [37]
Inadequate data quality for interim decisions	Poor data collection systems, untrained staff, documentation burden	Simplify data elements, implement structured training, use technology aids	Focus on 3-5 key metrics rather than comprehensive data [43]
Slow adaptation implementation	Complex approval processes, resistance to change, communication gaps	Pre-specify adaptation triggers, establish rapid review team, clear communication plan	Implement pre-approved adaptation protocols [43]
Limited local context consideration	Over-reliance on international evidence, insufficient local data collection	Conduct local context assessment, engage local experts, adapt interventions	Use rapid assessment methods like stakeholder interviews [45]

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Implementation Science

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Function in Implementation Research	Adaptations for Resource Limitations
Determinant Assessment	Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), Theoretical Domains Framework	Identify potential barriers and facilitators	Use abbreviated versions, focus on key domains [2]
Strategy Specification	Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC)	Define and specify implementation strategies	Select subset of strategies based on feasibility [2]
Adaptive Trial Design	Sample size re-estimation, response-adaptive randomization	Modify trial parameters based on interim data	Use group sequential designs with fewer interim analyses [43]
Outcome Measurement	RE-AIM, Implementation Outcomes Framework	Evaluate implementation success	Prioritize 2-3 key outcomes most relevant to context [2]
Data Capture	OpenClinica, mobile data collection	Collect and manage implementation data	Use mixed electronic-paper systems based on availability [43]

Leveraging Technology and Innovation in Determinant Assessment

Successful implementation of evidence-based interventions in cancer control relies on a deep understanding of the factors that influence their adoption. Determinant assessment is a critical process that systematically identifies these influencing factors—or determinants—across multiple domains, including the innovation itself, the individual user, the organizational context, and the broader socio-political environment [46]. A validated measurement instrument, developed through analysis of eight empirical studies, has identified 29 key determinants that predict the implementation success of innovations [46]. This technical support framework is designed to help researchers navigate the complexities of this assessment process, providing structured troubleshooting guides and methodological protocols to ensure accurate and reliable data collection for prioritizing implementation strategies in cancer control research.

Technical Support Center: Troubleshooting Guides

Common Issues and Solutions for Determinant Assessment

The following troubleshooting guide addresses frequent challenges researchers encounter when measuring implementation determinants, helping to maintain the integrity of your assessment data.

Problem 1: Low Survey Response Rates from Healthcare Professionals

• Symptoms: Poor participation from doctors, nurses, or other clinical staff; data collection timelines extended without sufficient data points.
• Root Cause: High clinical workloads, survey fatigue, or perceived lack of relevance to daily practice.
• Resolution:
  • Secure leadership endorsement: Have clinic or department managers formally communicate the study's importance and grant participation time [46].
  • Optimize survey design: Keep surveys concise and use digital platforms that are mobile-friendly.
  • Demonstrate direct benefit: Share how results will be used to improve local workflows and reduce future burdens.
  • Implement reminders and incentives: Use scheduled follow-ups and consider CE credits or small incentives to boost participation.

Problem 2: Inconsistent Measurement of Determinant Constructs

• Symptoms: Low inter-rater reliability; data that cannot be pooled across study sites; difficulty interpreting results.
• Root Cause: Use of ad-hoc, non-validated questions or inconsistent application of the measurement instrument.
• Resolution:
  • Adopt a validated instrument: Use the short, empirically-validated 29-determinant instrument to ensure consistency [46].
  • Conduct standardized training: Hold training sessions for all research staff on how to administer the instrument.
  • Pilot-test the protocol: Run a small-scale pilot to identify and correct inconsistencies in data collection procedures before full rollout.

Problem 3: Inability to Isolate Effects of Specific Determinants

• Symptoms: Analysis reveals correlations but fails to identify which determinants are most critical for intervention; "noisy" or confounded results.
• Root Cause: Simultaneous measurement of too many variables without a clear hypothesis or use of an appropriate analytical approach.
• Resolution:
  • Apply a structured framework: Use a pre-specified framework (e.g., the generic innovation framework [46]) to categorize determinants beforehand.
  • Use multivariate analysis: Employ statistical methods like multiple regression to examine the influence of individual determinants while controlling for others.
  • Prioritize based on empirical data: Focus on determinants consistently shown to predict completeness of use, such as "Replacement when staff leave" and "Formal ratification by management" [46].

Advanced Diagnostic Workflow for Data Anomalies

For complex data issues, a systematic, top-down approach is recommended. The following diagram maps the logical workflow for diagnosing and resolving data quality problems in determinant assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) for Researchers

Q1: What is the difference between a determinant and an outcome in implementation science? A determinant is a factor that predicts or influences the success of the implementation process (e.g., staff self-efficacy, management support). An outcome is the measured result of the implementation effort itself, such as the "completeness of use," which is the proportion of an innovation's key activities applied by the user [46].

Q2: How was the core list of 29 determinants validated? The list was reduced from an original set of 60 potential determinants through a pooled analysis of eight empirical studies in preventive child healthcare and schools. The analysis used multiple imputation for missing data and identified which determinants significantly predicted the completeness of use of innovations. Implementation experts were consulted to reach consensus on the final list and its operationalization [46].

Q3: Can this framework be applied to all types of cancer control innovations? Yes, the underlying framework is generic and can be adapted. The referenced studies examined a range of evidence-based innovations, from clinical guidelines to health promotion programs. The key is to tailor the assessment to the specific innovation and context, ensuring determinants related to the socio-political environment, organization, user, and innovation itself are considered [46].

Q4: What are the best practices for presenting determinant assessment data to stakeholders? Summarize quantitative data in structured tables for easy comparison. For determinants measured on Likert scales, present clear descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) and highlight determinants with the strongest associations to implementation outcomes. Visualizing pathways and workflows, as shown in the diagnostic diagram above, can effectively communicate complex relationships to diverse audiences [46].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Core Protocol for Measuring Implementation Determinants

This standardized protocol ensures reliable and comparable data on the factors influencing the implementation of cancer control interventions.

Objective: To systematically assess and measure the key determinants affecting the implementation of an evidence-based innovation in a cancer research or care setting.

Materials:

• Validated 29-item determinant measurement instrument [46].
• Digital or paper-based survey platform.
• Data management system (e.g., REDCap, SPSS).

Methodology:

• Instrument Selection and Adaptation:
  • Utilize the core set of 29 determinants, which includes factors such as "Staff capacity," "Formal ratification by management," and "Replacement when staff leave" [46].
  • Contextualize the instrument by slightly modifying the wording to fit the specific cancer control innovation (e.g., a new screening guideline, survivorship care plan) without altering the core meaning of the determinant constructs.

• Participant Recruitment and Sampling:

  • Define the target population of users (e.g., oncologists, nurses, clinic administrators).
  • Employ a census or stratified sampling approach to ensure representation from all relevant user groups and practice settings.
  • Secure institutional review board (IRB) approval and informed consent from all participants.

• Data Collection:

  • Administer the determinant survey before or during the early stages of implementation.
  • Use a cross-sectional design for a snapshot or longitudinal assessments at multiple time points to track changes.
  • Ensure anonymity and confidentiality to encourage candid responses.

• Measurement of Outcome Variable ("Completeness of Use"):

  • Simultaneously measure the implementation outcome. For "completeness of use," identify the key activities or recommendations of the innovation.
  • Have respondents indicate on a Likert scale (e.g., from "not at all" to "for all patients") the extent to which they apply each key activity.
  • Calculate the mean performance across all activities and standardize it to a percentage (0-100%) [46].

• Data Analysis:

  • Use multivariate regression analysis to model the relationship between the measured determinants and the completeness of use.
  • Identify which determinants are significant predictors (p < 0.05) and rank them by the strength of their association to prioritize targets for implementation strategies.

Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details the essential "materials" and tools required for conducting a robust determinant assessment.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Determinant Assessment

Item	Function in Assessment
Validated Determinant Instrument	A standardized questionnaire comprising 29 key determinants. Serves as the primary tool for reliable and consistent data collection across studies [46].
Data Analysis Software	Statistical software packages (e.g., R, SPSS, Stata). Used for managing survey data, performing multiple imputation for missing values, and running multivariate analyses to identify critical determinants [46].
Digital Survey Platform	Web-based applications for survey distribution and data capture (e.g., Qualtrics, REDCap). Facilitates efficient data collection from geographically dispersed participants and ensures data integrity.
Implementation Framework	A conceptual model outlining the stages of innovation uptake (e.g., dissemination, adoption, implementation, continuation). Guides the overall research design and helps categorize findings [46].

Data Presentation and Analysis

The following table synthesizes data from empirical studies, providing a clear comparison of how different categories of determinants influence implementation completeness. This allows researchers to prioritize factors with the greatest potential impact.

Table: Determinants of Innovation Implementation and Their Impact

Determinant Category	Specific Determinant	Measured Impact on Implementation Completeness	Notes for Cancer Control Context
Organizational Context	Formal ratification by management	Significant positive association	Leadership buy-in is critical for allocating resources to new cancer control programs [46].
Organizational Context	Replacement when staff leave	Significant positive association	Highlights need for contingency plans to maintain cancer screening or patient navigation services amidst staff turnover [46].
Organizational Context	Staff capacity	Considered relevant by experts	Inadequate staffing is a major barrier to implementing time-intensive interventions like genetic counseling [46].
Socio-Political Context	Legislation and regulations	Considered relevant by experts	Reimbursement policies and national cancer plans can directly enable or constrain implementation [46].
Innovation Characteristics	Clear procedures and instructions	Strong positive association	Complexity is a known barrier; providing clear guidelines is essential for complex cancer chemoprevention regimens [46].
User Characteristics	Self-efficacy	Strong positive association	A provider's confidence in their ability to perform a new procedure (e.g., a biopsy technique) directly affects adoption [46].

Pathway Analysis of Implementation Success

The integrated pathway below visualizes the theorized relationships between key determinant categories and their direct and indirect effects on the successful implementation of cancer control innovations.

Building Capacity for Sustained Determinant Monitoring and Evaluation

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What are sustainability determinants in the context of cancer control research? Sustainability determinants are the multi-level factors (e.g., inner/outer context, intervention characteristics, implementer characteristics) that influence whether an evidence-based cancer control intervention continues to be delivered and maintains its health benefits over time [47]. In cancer prevention, this can involve the long-term delivery of screening programs in tribal communities or tobacco control initiatives in low-and-middle-income countries [48] [49].

Q2: What are common challenges in monitoring these determinants? Common challenges include the poor psychometric quality of some determinant measures, lack of distinction between measures of sustainability as an outcome versus its determinants, and the fact that many existing measures have been used only once, limiting standardization [47]. In practice, settings like tribal healthcare facilities face specific challenges such as the need for improved technology and care coordination to support sustained healthcare delivery [48].

Q3: How can I select the best measure for sustainability determinants? Use a standardized assessment tool like the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) to evaluate candidate measures. For sustainability determinants specifically, the School-wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index-School Teams has demonstrated good psychometric and pragmatic qualities. Always ensure the measure's constructs align with your specific context and the domains of relevant frameworks, such as the Integrated Sustainability Framework [47].

Q4: Why is a multi-level approach crucial for understanding determinants? Cancer control interventions exist within complex systems. A multi-level approach allows researchers to identify key factors across different ecological levels, such as individual awareness, interpersonal provider recommendations, and healthcare system capabilities, which is essential for developing effective, sustained interventions [48] [49].

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue 1: Low-Quality or Impractical Measurement of Determinants

Problem: Data collected on sustainability determinants is unreliable, difficult to interpret, or not useful for making decisions.

Solution:

• Assess Measure Quality: Before implementation, critically evaluate potential measures using the PAPERS criteria, focusing on psychometric properties (reliability, validity) and pragmatic qualities (ease of use, scoring) [47].
• Ensure Content Validity: Map your chosen measure's items to an established sustainability framework, such as the Integrated Sustainability Framework. This confirms the measure adequately covers relevant domains like the outer context, inner context, and characteristics of the intervention and implementers [47].
• Use SMARTIE Criteria: When defining objectives for your monitoring system, use the Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound, Inclusive, and Equitable (SMARTIE) criteria to ensure your metrics are well-defined and account for equity [50].

Issue 2: Inability to Sustain Community Engagement and Participation

Problem: Stakeholder engagement wanes over time, reducing the relevance and applicability of the monitoring data.

Solution:

• Adopt a Mutual Learning Approach: Implement structured, iterative rounds of stakeholder dialogue. This fosters a shared understanding, bridges knowledge gaps, and strengthens long-term commitment to the monitoring process [50].
• Integrate Engagement into All Phases: Embed participatory processes from the initial identification of strategic objectives through to the refinement of specific objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs). This ensures the monitoring framework remains stakeholder-driven [50].
• Apply a Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Approach: As demonstrated in work with American Indian communities, actively engaging community members and healthcare providers as partners in the research helps identify contextually relevant determinants and fosters sustained investment in the project [48].

Issue 3: Selecting and Implementing an Unsuitable Framework

Problem: The chosen monitoring and evaluation framework does not fit the specific context of the cancer control intervention, leading to poor performance.

Solution:

• Conform to Established Principles: Select a framework that aligns with core implementation science principles, such as being theory-informed, multi-level, and accounting for contextual factors like socio-economic, environmental, and governance conditions [47] [50].
• Link M&E to the Entire Planning Cycle: A robust framework should facilitate ex-ante (baseline), intermediate (during implementation), and ex-post (outcome) evaluations, creating a continuous feedback loop for adaptive management [50].
• Tailor to Place-Based Needs: Avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. Co-evolutionary evaluation that is tailored to specific settings enhances knowledge generation and the usefulness of the findings [50].

Methodologies for Key Experiments

Protocol 1: Systematic Assessment of Sustainability Determinant Measures

This protocol guides the selection of a robust measure for monitoring sustainability determinants.

1. Objective: To identify, evaluate, and select the most psychometrically sound and pragmatic quantitative measure of sustainability determinants for a given cancer control research context.

2. Background: The field of implementation science has produced multiple measures, but their quality and applicability vary significantly. A systematic assessment is necessary to avoid using measures with poor reliability or that are impractical in the field [47].

3. Materials:

• Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO)
• Standardized assessment tool (e.g., Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale - PAPERS)
• Relevant conceptual framework (e.g., Integrated Sustainability Framework [47])

4. Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Identification: Conduct a systematic literature search using keywords related to "sustainability," "determinants," "measure," and "psychometric."
• Screening: Apply inclusion criteria to select multi-item, quantitative measures of sustainability determinants designed for community, public health, or clinical settings.
• Content Validation: Map the items of each identified measure to the domains and constructs of the Integrated Sustainability Framework to assess content coverage.
• Quality Appraisal: Score each measure using the PAPERS tool to evaluate its psychometric and pragmatic properties.
• Selection: Choose the measure with the highest PAPERS score that also demonstrates adequate content validity for your specific research context.

Protocol 2: Developing a Stakeholder-Driven M&E Framework

This protocol outlines a participatory method for building a monitoring and evaluation framework, ensuring it is relevant and applicable.

1. Objective: To develop a key performance indicator (KPI) framework for monitoring and evaluating sustainability determinants through an iterative, stakeholder-engaged process.

2. Background: Engaging stakeholders ensures that the M&E framework is contextually appropriate and addresses the key strategic objectives of a sustainable intervention [50].

3. Materials:

• Stakeholder list (government, industry, civil society)
• Data collection tools (e.g., questionnaires, dialogue guides)
• SMARTIE criteria checklist [50]

4. Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Stakeholder Engagement - Round 1: Convene stakeholders through dialogues or meetings to identify high-level strategic objectives for a sustainable cancer control intervention.
• Objective Refinement - Round 2: Present the strategic objectives back to stakeholders to refine them into specific, measurable objectives.
• KPI Development: For each specific objective, develop corresponding key performance indicators using the SMARTIE criteria.
• Framework Finalization: Define the frequency of measurements, data collection methods, and data sources for each KPI to create a complete monitoring framework.

Table 1: Evaluation of Selected Sustainability Determinant Measures This table summarizes the systematic assessment of measures, based on a 2022 review [47].

Measure Name	Primary Construct Measured	PAPERS Score (Max 56)	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
Provider Report of Sustainment Scale	Sustainability as an outcome	35 (Highest)	High psychometric & pragmatic quality; measures sustained delivery.	Measures sustainability as an outcome, not its determinants.
School-wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index-School Teams	Sustainability Determinants	29 (Highest for determinants)	Good psychometric and pragmatic qualities for determinant measurement.	Developed in educational settings; may require adaptation for health.
[Example of other measures]	Sustainability Determinants	14-35 (Range)	Variable content coverage.	Psychometric and pragmatic quality is variable; many used only once.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Determinant Monitoring Essential materials and tools for building capacity in monitoring sustainability determinants.

Item Name	Function/Brief Explanation	Example Application / Note
Integrated Sustainability Framework [47]	A conceptual framework that organizes multi-level sustainability determinants into domains (outer/inner context, intervention characteristics, etc.).	Used to map and ensure comprehensive coverage of determinants during measure selection and framework development.
Psychometric & Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) [47]	A standardized tool to critically assess the quality (reliability, validity) and practicality (ease of use) of implementation measures.	Applied in Protocol 1 to systematically evaluate and compare different measures of sustainability determinants.
SMARTIE Criteria [50]	A set of criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound, Inclusive, Equitable) for defining robust and equitable objectives and KPIs.	Used in Protocol 2 to guide the development of specific objectives and indicators within the M&E framework.
Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Approach [48]	A research partnership approach that equitably involves community members and researchers in the process.	Critical for ensuring the monitoring framework is contextually and culturally relevant, thereby promoting long-term engagement and sustainability.

Workflow and Relationship Diagrams

Determinant Monitoring Framework

Multi-Level Determinant Analysis

Measuring Impact: Validation Frameworks and Comparative Analysis of Prioritization Methods

Validation Frameworks for Implementation Determinant Measures

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and Troubleshooting Guides

Q1: What are the most critical barriers to successful implementation in cancer control that our measurement approach should capture?

A: Research identifies several consistent critical barriers. Underdeveloped methods for barrier identification remains a primary challenge, leading to incomplete understanding of implementation context [15]. Many researchers also struggle with poor measurement of implementation constructs and incomplete understanding of strategy mechanisms [15]. In resource-constrained settings, additional barriers include unstructured stakeholder engagement and failure to assess health system capacity before implementing new interventions [6]. When selecting or developing measures, ensure they can capture these organizational and contextual factors.

Q2: Why do my determinant measurements show inconsistent results across different clinical sites?

A: Inconsistent measurements often stem from contextual variability and methodological issues. Studies reveal that significant variability in delivering optimized healthcare arises from contextual differences across healthcare settings and geographical regions [6]. Methodologically, inconsistency can occur from using non-representative datasets or failing to account for technical diversity across sites [51]. To troubleshoot: (1) assess whether your sampling strategy includes adequate technical diversity (e.g., different equipment, protocols); (2) validate your measures across multiple distinct populations; (3) use stain normalization or other techniques to minimize technical variability where appropriate [51].

Q3: How can we effectively validate measures for implementation determinants in low-resource settings?

A: Effective validation in resource-constrained settings requires adapted approaches. Research emphasizes the importance of context-specific strategies and structured stakeholder engagement throughout the validation process [6] [52]. Recommended steps include: (1) conducting thorough situational analysis to understand local constraints; (2) employing purposive expert selection based on familiarity with resource-constrained settings; (3) using mixed-methods designs that combine quantitative surveys with qualitative insights; (4) establishing consensus through structured expert review of findings [6]. The ICCP ECHO program demonstrated that interactive, bidirectional knowledge exchange can significantly improve validation appropriateness for specific contexts [24].

Q4: What common methodological flaws should we avoid when validating determinant measures?

A: Common methodological flaws identified through systematic reviews include: (1) retrospective case-control designs without real-world validation; (2) small and/or non-representative datasets; (3) inadequate reporting of participant characteristics leading to unclear applicability; (4) high risk of bias in participant selection and study design domains [51]. Additionally, many studies fail to assess health system capacity to determine readiness for implementing new interventions, limiting the practical utility of measures [6]. To avoid these flaws, prioritize prospective designs, adequate sample sizes, comprehensive reporting, and capacity assessment.

Table 1: Key Implementation Science Frameworks for Cancer Control

Framework Domain	Key Components	Application Context	Validation Considerations
Stakeholder Engagement	Involvement at each stage of strategy development [6]	National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) in LMICs [6]	Often unstructured and incomplete; requires formalization [6]
Situational Analysis	Understanding barriers and facilitators to implementation [6]	Resource-constrained settings [6]	Should explicitly address contextual differences [6]
Capacity Assessment	Determining health system readiness for new interventions [6]	Low and medium Human Development Index countries [6]	Frequently overlooked; none of analyzed NCCPs included this [6]
Economic Evaluation	Activity-based costing approaches [6]	Cancer control planning with limited resources [6]	Used in 4 low HDI and 9 medium HDI countries' plans [6]
Impact Measurement	Key performance indicators, outcome tracking [6]	Across cancer care continuum [6]	Present in all analyzed plans but often lack engagement mechanisms [6]

Table 2: Common Implementation Determinants and Measurement Approaches

Determinant Category	Specific Measures	Data Collection Methods	Validation Evidence
Organizational Determinants	Centralized coordination, invitation systems, quality assurance [53]	Audit and feedback mechanisms, system monitoring [53]	Community-based outreach particularly effective for underserved populations [53]
Technical Infrastructure	Digital tools, reminder systems, data interoperability [54]	System performance metrics, usability testing [54]	Higher effectiveness when integrated within broader organizational ecosystems [53]
Implementation Processes	Reach, acceptability, feasibility, adoption, fidelity [52]	Mixed-methods: surveys, focus groups, performance data [24] [52]	Most studies evaluate multiple implementation outcomes simultaneously [52]
Contextual Factors	Healthcare system maturity, resource availability, cultural practices [6] [52]	Situational analysis, stakeholder interviews [6]	Critical for adaptation to Asian healthcare settings with vast heterogeneity [52]

Experimental Protocols for Validation Studies

Protocol 1: Mixed-Methods Validation for Determinant Measures

Purpose: To comprehensively validate implementation determinant measures through quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Materials:

• Preliminary determinant measurement instrument
• Recruitment materials for diverse stakeholder groups
• Data recording and management system
• Statistical analysis software (R, SPSS, or equivalent)
• Qualitative data analysis tool (NVivo, Dedoose, or equivalent)

Procedure:

• Stakeholder Recruitment: Purposively select participants based on familiarity with resource-constrained settings [6]. Include policymakers, healthcare providers, and implementation researchers.
• Instrument Administration: Deploy preliminary measures to appropriate stakeholder groups using standardized protocols.
• Quantitative Data Collection: Administer surveys to sufficient sample size to ensure statistical power for reliability testing.
• Qualitative Data Collection: Conduct focus group discussions (FGDs) using semi-structured guides [24]. Audio-record, transcribe, and double-code transcripts.
• Data Integration: Use convergent parallel design to merge quantitative and qualitative findings for comprehensive validation.
• Expert Review: Present structured questions to implementation science experts in advance [6]. Obtain feedback on practical utility, dissemination strategies, and simplification needs.
• Refinement Cycle: Iteratively revise measures based on integrated findings until consensus is achieved.

Validation Metrics:

• Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.70)
• Content validity index (CVI >0.80)
• Construct validity through factor analysis
• Thematic analysis of qualitative feedback
• Expert consensus on relevance and feasibility

Protocol 2: Cross-Context Validation for Generalizability Assessment

Purpose: To evaluate whether determinant measures perform consistently across diverse healthcare contexts.

Materials:

• Validated determinant measures
• Multiple healthcare settings with varying characteristics
• Modifiable data collection platforms
• Context assessment tools

Procedure:

• Site Selection: Identify diverse implementation settings representing variability in resources, patient populations, and healthcare systems [51].
• Context Assessment: Characterize each site using standardized dimensions (resources, infrastructure, policies, cultural factors).
• Measure Administration: Implement identical determinant measures across all sites using consistent protocols.
• Performance Tracking: Document implementation outcomes (acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness) at each site.
• Comparative Analysis: Evaluate measure performance across contexts using:
  • Differential item functioning analysis for survey items [55]
  • Cross-site thematic comparison for qualitative data
  • Measurement invariance testing in statistical models
• Context-Specific Adaptation: Identify measures requiring modification for specific contexts while maintaining core constructs.

Analysis:

• Calculate intraclass correlation coefficients for cross-context reliability
• Perform Mokken scale analysis to confirm scalability and unidimensionality [55]
• Test differential item functioning for demographic and contextual variables [55]

Visualization of Implementation Determinant Validation Framework

Implementation Determinant Validation Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions for Implementation Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Implementation Determinant Measurement

Research Reagent/Tool	Function/Purpose	Application Context
ERIC Framework [6]	Provides standardized set of implementation strategies	Shaping research questions and evaluating NCCPs
Open Symptom Framework (OSF) [55]	Public domain modular framework for patient-reported outcomes	Measuring cancer symptoms in clinical practice and research
StaRI Checklist [52]	Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies	Ensuring comprehensive reporting in implementation research
QUADAS-AI Tool [51]	Quality Assessment of Diagnostic AI Studies	Evaluating risk of bias in AI validation studies
ROBINS-I Tool [53]	Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies	Assessing quality of observational implementation studies
ICCP Portal [6]	Repository of National Cancer Control Plans	Accessing country-specific cancer control strategies
Project ECHO Model [24]	Technology-enabled learning for knowledge exchange	Building capacity for NCCP implementation in LMICs
ExpandNet Framework [56]	Guidance for scaling up health innovations	Planning and evaluating scale-up of cancer interventions

Comparative Analysis of Determinant Prioritization Methods Across Settings

FAQ: Researcher's Technical Support Center

How do I select the most effective method for prioritizing implementation determinants?

The choice of method depends on your research context, resources, and the nature of your stakeholder group. The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of different approaches based on comparative studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Determinant Prioritization Methods

Method	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Resource Intensity	Best Application Context
Small Group Discussion & Ranking	Generates consensus; combines diverse perspectives [57]	Requires skilled facilitation; potential for power dynamics to influence outcomes [57]	Moderate to High (requires in-person engagement)	When stakeholder buy-in and nuanced understanding are critical [57]
Delphi Technique	Structured consensus-building; reduces dominance by individuals [58]	Time-consuming for multiple rounds; participant dropout can occur [58]	High (multiple survey rounds)	When seeking expert consensus across dispersed geographical areas [58]
"Go-Zone" Plots	Visual and intuitive; clearly identifies high-priority candidates [57]	Simplifies to two dimensions (e.g., feasibility & effectiveness); may lose nuance [57]	Low to Moderate	For initial triaging of strategies or determinants with stakeholders [57]
Rating Scales (e.g., CFIR)	Quantifies qualitative data; allows comparison across sites [1]	Removes contextual nuance; requires clear operational definitions [1]	Moderate (data collection and analysis)	When needing to systematically assess and compare determinant strength [1]
Past Experience Surveys	Leverages practical, real-world insights; relatively efficient [57]	Limited to what has been tried; may miss innovative solutions [57]	Low	For rapid assessment in established programs with experienced staff [57]

What are the most impactful determinants to prioritize in implementation science?

Research has identified consistent determinants that strongly influence implementation success across multiple studies. A systematic review of studies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) rating system identified eight key determinants that most frequently have the largest impact [1]:

Table 2: Key Implementation Determinants and Their Definitions

Key Determinant	Domain	Definition	Impact Rating
Leadership Engagement	Inner Setting	Commitment, involvement, and accountability of leaders and managers [1]	Major facilitator/barrier
Compatibility	Innovation	Fit between the innovation and existing workflows, values, and needs [1]	Strongly distinguishes implementation effectiveness
Available Resources	Inner Setting	Level of dedicated resources, including funding, space, and time [1]	Major facilitator/barrier
Champions	Process	Individuals who dedicate themselves to supporting and driving the innovation [1]	Major facilitator
Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders	Process	Leaders with formal responsibility for implementing the innovation [1]	Major facilitator
External Change Agents	Outer Setting	Individuals outside the organization who influence implementation [1]	Major facilitator
Relative Advantage	Innovation	Perception that the innovation is better than current practice [1]	Strongly distinguishes implementation effectiveness
Key Stakeholders	Process	Involvement of individuals affected by the implementation [1]	Major facilitator

How do I effectively bundle implementation strategies?

Strategy bundling requires careful consideration of complementarity and feasibility. Research indicates that bundling approaches that present strategies in a predetermined order may introduce option ordering bias, where participants preferentially select strategies based on their position in a list rather than their merit [57]. Effective bundling methods include:

• Concept Mapping: Allows stakeholders to group conceptually similar strategies together based on their perceived relationships [57].
• Theory-Informed Bundling: Group strategies that address related implementation determinants or operate through similar mechanisms [59].
• Iterative Refinement: Use small group discussions to refine bundles, as direct ranking or voting methods have shown limited effectiveness for bundling [57].

What common pitfalls should I avoid when prioritizing determinants?

• Overlooking Contextual Variation: The "outer setting" including economic, social, and physical environments significantly influences implementation success but is frequently under-examined [42]. Always assess how community-level factors might affect your prioritization.
• Relying on Single-Method Approaches: Different prioritization methods yield moderately correlated but distinct results [57]. A multi-method approach provides more robust findings.
• Ignoring Power Dynamics: In small group settings, power differentials between stakeholders can disproportionately influence outcomes without careful facilitation [57].
• Focusing Only on Clinical Settings: Organizational determinants like centralized coordination, active invitation systems, and quality assurance mechanisms significantly impact public health implementation success [53].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Modified Delphi Process for Determinant Prioritization

This protocol is adapted from studies establishing implementation priorities for cancer rehabilitation navigation programs [58].

Objective: To achieve expert consensus on prioritized implementation determinants or strategies.

Materials Needed:

• List of candidate determinants/strategies
• Survey platform (e.g., REDCap, online surveys)
• Communication system for feedback between rounds

Procedure:

• Round 1: Distribute the initial list of determinants to stakeholders (n=9-15 typical). Ask participants to rate the importance of each item on a Likert scale (e.g., 1-5) and provide open-ended feedback for additions or modifications [58].
• Analysis: Calculate mean ratings and quantitative measures of consensus (e.g., percentage agreement). A priori establish a consensus threshold (e.g., 70% agreement) [58].
• Round 2: Share the aggregated ratings and feedback from Round 1 with participants. Ask them to re-rate items that did not achieve consensus, considering the group's feedback.
• Final Prioritization: Finalize the list of prioritized determinants that meet the consensus threshold. Typically, 2 rounds are sufficient, but additional rounds may be conducted if consensus is not achieved [58].

Protocol 2: Side-by-Side Comparison of Prioritization Methods

This protocol is adapted from research comparing methods to engage diverse stakeholders in prioritizing implementation strategies [57].

Objective: To compare the outputs of different prioritization methods when applied to the same set of implementation determinants.

Materials Needed:

• Defined set of implementation determinants (16-20 items ideal)
• Survey tools for different methods
• Data analysis software (R, SPSS, or similar)

Procedure:

• Participant Recruitment: Recruit stakeholders with relevant implementation experience. Consider including healthcare workers, policy makers, and end-users for diverse perspectives [57].
• Parallel Data Collection: Administer different prioritization methods to comparable stakeholder groups or the same group in counterbalanced order:
  • Individual Ranking: Ask participants to individually rank determinants in order of perceived importance [57].
  • Small Group Discussion & Ranking: Facilitate small group discussions (4-6 participants) about the determinants, then have the group collectively rank them [57].
  • Rating Surveys: Ask participants to rate each determinant on criteria such as feasibility and impact using scales (e.g., -2 [major barrier] to +2 [major facilitator]) [1].
• Data Analysis:
  • Use Kendall's correlation analysis to compare strategy prioritization across different methods [57].
  • Compare the top-ranked determinants from each method.
  • Collect participant feedback on the feasibility and perceived value of each method.
• Interpretation: Report on the agreement between methods and practical considerations like resource requirements and stakeholder preference [57].

Workflow Visualization

Determinant Prioritization Method Selection Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions: Essential Tools for Implementation Science

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Determinant Prioritization Studies

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Example	Access Information
CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research)	Determinant identification and classification framework	Provides a structured list of potential implementation determinants across multiple domains to inform data collection [1]	https://cfirguide.org/
ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change)	Compilation of 73 implementation strategies	Used for strategy-determinant mapping after prioritization is complete [59]	https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1
Damschroder & Lowery Rating Scale	Quantifies determinant magnitude and valence	Enables rating of determinants from -2 (major barrier) to +2 (major facilitator) for comparative analysis [1]	Published in Implementation Science [1]
Outer Setting Data Resource	Assesses community-level contextual factors	Captures food, physical, economic, social, healthcare, and policy environments that influence implementation [42]	Customizable tool using public data (Census, ACS) [42]
REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture)	Secure web application for survey data collection	Platform for administering Delphi surveys or rating exercises to stakeholders [57]	https://www.project-redcap.org/
Implementation Mapping Framework	Systematic approach for strategy selection	Guides the process from barrier identification through strategy selection and testing [58]	Published in PM&R [58]

Assessing Generalizability and Scalability of Prioritization Approaches

Troubleshooting Guides and FAQs

This technical support resource addresses common methodological challenges in assessing the generalizability and scalability of prioritization approaches for implementation determinants in cancer control research.

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 1: Why do prioritization frameworks that work well in controlled research settings often fail when applied to real-world cancer control programs?

Real-world failure often stems from a generalizability gap between research and practice. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) typically employ restrictive eligibility criteria that result in study populations poorly representing broader oncology patient communities [60]. Approximately 20% of real-world oncology patients are ineligible for phase 3 trials [60]. This creates significant challenges when translating prioritization frameworks from research to practice. Solutions include using machine learning frameworks like TrialTranslator to systematically evaluate generalizability across different prognostic phenotypes [60], and employing pragmatic research approaches that incorporate practitioners and decision-makers in developing research questions to enhance relevance [61].

FAQ 2: How can researchers quantitatively assess the generalizability of their prioritization approaches across diverse patient populations?

Use trial emulation frameworks that stratify real-world patients into prognostic phenotypes using machine learning models [60]. The methodology involves:

• Developing cancer-specific prognostic models using gradient boosting machines (GBM) or similar algorithms to predict patient mortality risk [60]
• Stratifying patients into low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk phenotypes based on model outputs [60]
• Applying inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance features between treatment and control arms [60]
• Comparing restricted mean survival time (RMST) and median overall survival (mOS) across phenotypes [60]

FAQ 3: What specific scalability challenges arise when expanding prioritization frameworks from pilot studies to broader implementation?

Scalability challenges include:

• Infrastructure limitations: Sophisticated standardized data collection and repository infrastructure often lacking, particularly in settings with rudimentary registries [61]
• Resource constraints: Implementation requires significant investment in data systems and specialist expertise [61]
• Contextual variability: Organizational, community, regional, and national factors influence implementation success [61] Mitigation strategies include developing brief, practical measures that are easy to collect over time and sensitive enough to assess change in short periods [61].

FAQ 4: Which prioritization frameworks show the strongest generalizability across different cancer types and healthcare settings?

The RICE framework (Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort) provides a structured approach applicable across settings [62]. The Value vs. Effort matrix helps prioritize features based on probable value and implementation effort [62]. The MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, Won't) offers simplicity for initial sorting [62]. For generalizability, frameworks must be adapted to local contexts through stakeholder engagement and community-based participatory research [61].

Experimental Protocols for Assessing Generalizability

Protocol 1: Machine Learning-Based Trial Emulation

Table 1: Key Methodological Components for Trial Emulation

Component	Description	Data Requirements
Prognostic Model Development	Develop supervised survival-based ML models tailored to cancer type	Electronic health records, demographic data, clinical characteristics, cancer biomarkers [60]
Eligibility Matching	Identify real-world patients meeting key RCT eligibility criteria	Cancer type, treatment regimens, biomarker status, line of therapy [60]
Prognostic Phenotyping	Stratify patients into risk phenotypes using mortality risk scores	Risk scores from ML model, tertile rankings (low, medium, high risk) [60]
Survival Analysis	Assess treatment effect for each phenotype	Restricted mean survival time (RMST), median overall survival (mOS) [60]

Methodology:

• Data Source Preparation: Utilize nationwide EHR-derived databases containing structured and unstructured patient data [60]
• Model Development: Train gradient boosting survival models optimized for predictive performance at clinically relevant timepoints [60]
• Trial Emulation: Apply IPTW to balance relevant features between treatment and control arms within each phenotype [60]
• Generalizability Assessment: Compare survival outcomes and treatment effects across risk phenotypes and against original RCT results [60]

Protocol 2: Pragmatic Research for Enhanced Scalability

Table 2: Implementation Science Approaches for Scalability

Approach	Application	Outcome Measures
Operations Research	System performance measurement and quality improvement	Quality indicators, process efficiency metrics [61]
Stakeholder Engagement	Research, practice, policy partnership models	Stakeholder satisfaction, policy adoption rates [61]
Health Economics Assessment	Economic evaluation of cancer control activities	Cost-effectiveness, resource allocation efficiency [61]
Implementation Science	Studying strategies to implement evidence-based interventions	Adoption rates, fidelity measures, sustainability indicators [61]

Methodology:

• Stakeholder Identification: Engage researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in developing research questions [61]
• Contextual Assessment: Evaluate organizational, local, community, regional, and national factors influencing implementation [61]
• Adaptive Design: Incorporate real-world factors into study designs for more rapid integration into practice and policy [61]
• Economic Evaluation: Apply health economics to assess feasibility and sustainability of prioritization approaches [61]

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Generalizability Assessment

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Key Features
Electronic Health Record Databases	Source of real-world patient data for trial emulation and prognostic modeling	Longitudinal data, demographic information, clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes [60]
Machine Learning Frameworks (e.g., TrialTranslator)	Systematic evaluation of RCT generalizability across prognostic phenotypes	Prognostic model development, risk stratification, treatment effect heterogeneity analysis [60]
Prioritization Frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Value vs. Effort)	Structured approaches for ranking implementation determinants	Reach, Impact, Confidence, Effort assessment; Must/Should/Could/Won't categorization; Value-effort matrix [62]
Implementation Science Methodologies	Studying processes for integrating research into practice and policy	Stakeholder engagement strategies, contextual analysis, adaptation frameworks [61]
Health Economics Assessment Tools	Economic evaluation of cancer control activities	Cost-effectiveness analysis, resource allocation optimization, budget impact assessment [61]

Experimental Workflows

Generalizability Assessment Workflow

Scalability Assessment Workflow

Economic Evaluation of Determinant Assessment Strategies

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of a determinant assessment in implementation science? In implementation science, a determinant assessment identifies the barriers and facilitators (known as determinants) that affect the successful implementation of an evidence-based intervention. In cancer control, this is a critical first step for avoiding a "trial-and-error" approach and ensuring that limited resources are used efficiently by targeting the most impactful barriers [2].

Why is it important to prioritize determinants after identifying them? Research settings often have dozens of implementation determinants, making it impractical to address all of them. Methods for prioritization are needed to focus resources on the determinants with the greatest potential to undermine implementation, rather than just those that seem easiest to address [2].

How does economic evaluation fit into determinant assessment? Economic evaluation helps compare the costs and consequences of different determinant assessment strategies. It ensures that the methods used for identifying and prioritizing barriers are not only effective but also cost-efficient, which is particularly important for cancer control programs operating with limited budgets [63] [64].

What are common challenges in this process? Four critical barriers often hinder progress: underdeveloped methods for determinant identification and prioritization, incomplete knowledge of how implementation strategies work (their mechanisms), underuse of methods for optimizing strategies, and poor measurement of implementation constructs [2].

---

Troubleshooting Guides

Issue: "I have identified too many determinants and don't know which to prioritize."

Description: After conducting interviews or surveys using general frameworks like the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), research teams can be overwhelmed by a long list of barriers and facilitators.

Potential Causes:

• Cause 1: The use of general determinants frameworks, which can identify a large number of general determinants but may miss more specific, critical issues [2].
• Cause 2: A lack of established, reported methods for prioritizing identified determinants from the many that are initially found [2].

Solutions:

• Solution 1: Adopt a Causal Pathway Approach
  • Description: Use methods like causal pathway diagramming to understand the relationships between determinants and hypothesize how they influence your specific implementation outcome. This helps distinguish root causes from symptoms.
  • Steps:
    • Map Relationships: Visually diagram how you believe different determinants are linked (e.g., how a "lack of training" leads to "low self-efficacy," which in turn causes "reluctance to adopt a new screening tool") [28].
    • Identify Key Drivers: Use the diagram to identify determinants that have the most incoming and outgoing connections. These are often high-leverage points for intervention.
• Solution 2: Apply a Prioritization Matrix
  • Description: Create a simple scoring system to rank determinants based on predefined criteria relevant to your project's goals and resources.
  • Steps:
    • Select Criteria: Choose two key criteria for evaluation, such as "Potential Impact on Implementation" (High/Medium/Low) and "Feasibility to Address" (High/Medium/Low).
    • Score and Plot: Have your research team score each determinant and plot them on a matrix. Focus first on determinants rated "High Impact," regardless of feasibility [2].

Expected Outcome: A shortened, prioritized list of determinants that have the greatest potential to influence the success of your cancer control evidence-based intervention, allowing for more efficient use of implementation resources.

Useful Resources:

• OPTICC Center resources on causal pathway diagramming [28].

Issue: "Our implementation strategy did not work, and we don't know why."

Description: After matching a strategy to a prioritized barrier, the expected improvement in implementation outcomes (e.g., screening rates) was not observed.

Potential Causes:

• Cause 1: The strategy was not correctly matched to the determinant because the strategy's underlying mechanism of action was not fully understood [2].
• Cause 2: The strategy was not optimized for the specific context (e.g., wrong format, source, or dose) before being rolled out widely [2].

Solutions:

• Solution 1: Investigate Strategy Mechanisms
  • Description: Shift focus from what strategy was used to how it was supposed to work. A strategy's mechanism is the process through which it produces its effect.
  • Steps:
    • Theorize the Mechanism: For example, if you used "clinical reminders for cancer screening," its mechanism for addressing provider habitual behavior is by "providing a cue to action" at the point of care [2].
    • Measure Mechanism Activation: Develop or find measures to check if the mechanism was activated (e.g., did providers report noticing and feeling cued by the reminder?). If the mechanism was not activated, the strategy failed to engage with the barrier as intended.
• Solution 2: Use Optimization Methods Before Pivoting
  • Description: Instead of abandoning the strategy, use more efficient methods, like those from agile science, to test variations of the strategy and find a more effective one.
  • Steps:
    • Identify Variables: Determine which aspects of the strategy can be varied (e.g., the frequency of audit and feedback, the format of an educational memo).
    • Run Rapid Cycles: Use a multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) to test different combinations of these variables in small, rapid cycles to find the most effective and efficient combination before committing to another large-scale trial [2].

Expected Outcome: A clearer understanding of why an implementation strategy succeeded or failed, and data-driven insights for selecting or refining future strategies.

Useful Resources:

• OPTICC Center's work on the mechanics of implementation strategies and measures [28].

---

Experimental Protocols & Data

Protocol for a Systematic Review on Organizational Determinants

The following methodology is adapted from a recent systematic review on organizational factors influencing cancer screening participation [63].

• Objective: To synthesize current evidence on how organizational determinants influence adherence and participation in organized cancer screening programs.
• Registration: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251029265).
• Eligibility Criteria:
  • Participants: Adult populations within recommended age ranges for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening.
  • Intervention: Organized screening interventions with a focus on organizational strategies (e.g., invitation systems, recall mechanisms).
  • Outcomes: Quantitative measures of screening participation, uptake, or compliance.
  • Study Designs: Quasi-experimental, cohort, and cross-sectional studies published between 2015 and 2025.
• Information Sources: MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Scopus.
• Search Strategy: A peer-reviewed search strategy combined terms related to cancer screening, organizational strategies, and participation indicators.
• Study Selection & Data Extraction: Conducted independently by two reviewers using Rayyan software and a standardized data extraction form.
• Risk of Bias Assessment: Assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.

Quantitative Findings on Organizational Strategies

The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from the systematic review on what works to improve cancer screening participation [63].

Organizational Strategy	Reported Effectiveness	Key Contextual Notes
Active Invitation Systems	Effective	Centralized coordination and personalized invitations are foundational to successful programs.
Community-Based Outreach	Particularly Effective	Especially effective for increasing participation among underserved populations.
Culturally Tailored Education	Highly Effective	Works synergistically with community outreach to address health disparities.
Digital Tools & Reminders	Higher Effectiveness	Demonstrated highest impact when integrated within broader organizational ecosystems.
Audit and Feedback	Modest Improvement	Improved adherence, especially when aligned with formal quality improvement initiatives.

---

Workflow Visualization

Determinant Assessment and Optimization

Economic Evaluation Framework

---

Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key tools and resources used in implementation science research for cancer control, based on the identified needs from the OPTICC Center and related literature [2] [28].

Item / Resource	Function / Application
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)	A meta-theoretical framework used to identify potential determinants (barriers and facilitators) across multiple domains affecting implementation [2].
Causal Pathway Diagramming	A method for developing and refining theories about how determinants and strategies are causally linked, enhancing implementation precision [28].
Pragmatic Measures of Implementation Constructs	Reliable, valid, and brief measures for assessing determinants, mechanism activation, and outcomes; essential for rigorous evaluation and optimization [2].
Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST)	An engineering-inspired framework for optimizing multi-component implementation strategies before a costly randomized controlled trial, improving efficiency and effectiveness [2].
Implementation Laboratory (I-Lab)	A coordinated network of diverse clinical and community partners that serves as a real-world setting for conducting rapid implementation studies and testing methods [2] [28].

Case Examples from NCI-Funded Implementation Science Grants

Frequently Asked Questions: Navigating NCI-Funded Implementation Science

FAQ 1: What types of policy conceptualization approaches are most common in NCI-funded implementation science grants?

Policy is most frequently conceptualized as something to implement (71.4% of grants), followed by policy as context to understand (35.7%), and policy as a strategy to use or something to adopt (28.6% each). Many grants focus on multiple policy conceptualizations simultaneously [25].

FAQ 2: Which cancer control areas receive the most focus in implementation science scale-up research?

Prevention is the most studied area (64.7% of scale-up grants), followed by screening (41.2%). Treatment and survivorship are significantly less represented (11.8% each), indicating important research gaps [65].

FAQ 3: What are the primary methodological challenges when studying implementation at scale?

Key challenges include building infrastructure to support full-scale implementation (as opposed to simple replication), adapting interventions across multiple settings, and measuring system-level outcomes rather than single-site effectiveness [65].

FAQ 4: How can researchers effectively address stakeholder engagement in cancer control planning?

Effective stakeholder engagement requires structured, complete approaches rather than the typically unstructured methods currently used. This includes engaging stakeholders at each stage of strategy development and ensuring mechanisms exist for responsible entities to achieve targets [6].

Quantitative Analysis of NCI-Funded Implementation Science Grants

Table 1: Policy Implementation Science Grants Funded by NCI (FY 2014-2023)

Characteristic	Category	Number of Grants	Percentage
Policy Conceptualization	Policy as something to implement	10	71.4%
	Policy as context to understand	5	35.7%
	Policy as a strategy to use	4	28.6%
	Policy as something to adopt	4	28.6%
Cancer Continuum Focus	Prevention	11	78.6%
	Screening	3	21.4%
	Treatment	2	14.3%
	Survivorship	2	14.3%
Policy Level	Organizational	8	57.1%
	State	8	57.1%
	Federal	3	21.4%
	Local	2	14.3%

Table 2: Scale-Up Implementation Science Grants Funded by NCI (2016-2023)

Characteristic	Category	Number of Grants	Percentage
Primary Focus	Studying factors influencing scale-up	11	64.7%
	Assessing costs/benefits of scaled delivery	9	52.9%
	Testing implementation strategies for scale-up	7	41.2%
Cancer Continuum	Prevention	11	64.7%
	Screening	7	41.2%
	Treatment	2	11.8%
	Survivorship	2	11.8%
Setting	Healthcare settings	11	64.7%
	International research	6	35.3%

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Protocol 1: Portfolio Analysis of Implementation Science Grants

Objective: To systematically characterize NCI-funded implementation science grants focused on policy and scale-up research to identify gaps and opportunities [25] [65].

Methodology:

• Data Source Identification: Use NIH Query View Report (QVR) tool to identify relevant grants
• Search Strategy: Apply implementation science keywords ("implementation science," "implementation research," "cancer care delivery") combined with policy terms ("policy," "law," "regulation") or scale-up terms ("scale-up," "scaling up," "spread")
• Eligibility Screening: Dual-coder review of abstracts and specific aims using PRISMA guidelines
• Data Extraction: Code grants for characteristics including policy conceptualization, cancer continuum focus, study design, and theoretical frameworks
• Analysis: Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of grant portfolios

Troubleshooting Tips:

• When differentiating between implementation science and other research, apply the definition: "the study of methods to promote the adoption and integration of evidence-based practices, interventions, and policies into routine health care and public health settings" [65]
• For scale-up identification, use ExpandNet's definition: "deliberate efforts to increase the impact of innovations successfully tested in pilot or experimental projects to benefit more people" [65]

Protocol 2: Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Implementation Strategies

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge exchange platforms for supporting National Cancer Control Plan implementation [24].

Methodology:

• Pre-Post Survey Design: Measure changes in self-reported knowledge and confidence using 4-point Likert scales
• Focus Group Discussions: Conduct post-intervention discussions with participants from implementing countries
• Thematic Analysis: Double-code transcripts and identify emergent themes
• Statistical Analysis: Use paired T-tests to assess significant changes in knowledge and confidence

Common Challenges & Solutions:

• Challenge: Internet connectivity issues in low-resource settings
• Solution: Implement asynchronous learning components and provide downloadable resources
• Challenge: Limited duration for complex content
• Solution: Incorporate additional one-on-one technical assistance sessions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Resources for Implementation Science Research

Resource Category	Specific Tool/Framework	Function & Application
Implementation Science Frameworks	Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [66] [67]	Evaluates implementation contexts, identifies determinants across multiple domains
	RE-AIM Framework [67]	Plans and evaluates interventions across Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance
	Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [6] [67]	Provides standardized compilation of implementation strategies
Study Design Resources	Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Designs [67]	Simultaneously tests interventions and implementation strategies
	Qualitative Methods in Implementation Science [67]	Explores contextual factors, stakeholder perspectives, implementation processes
Measurement Tools	Implementation Outcomes Framework [67]	Measures acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, sustainability
Training Resources	Training Institute for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (TIDIRH) [66] [67]	Provides foundational training in D&I research methods
	Implementation Science Webinars [67]	Offers specialized training on strategies, measures, and methods

Methodological Workflow for Prioritizing Implementation Determinants

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Table 4: Identified Research Gaps in NCI-Funded Implementation Science

Research Area	Current Status	Future Opportunities
Policy Implementation	Limited focus on policy as context or strategy [25]	Expand research on policy as multifactorial (context, strategy, implementation target)
Scale-Up Research	Only 17 grants focused on scale-up (2016-2023) [65]	Develop methods for building infrastructure supporting full-scale implementation
Cancer Continuum	Heavy focus on prevention and screening [25] [65]	Expand research across continuum, especially treatment and survivorship
Stakeholder Engagement	Typically unstructured and incomplete in NCCPs [6]	Develop structured approaches with mechanisms for achieving targets
Theoretical Application	Varied use of theories, models, and frameworks [25]	Apply implementation science more systematically to cancer control planning

Conclusion

Effective prioritization of implementation determinants is crucial for bridging the gap between cancer control evidence and real-world impact. This synthesis demonstrates that successful approaches integrate robust theoretical frameworks with practical assessment methods, account for diverse contextual factors including the often-overlooked 'outer setting,' and employ validation strategies to ensure generalizability. Future directions must focus on developing more efficient, economical methods for barrier identification, improving measurement of implementation constructs, and advancing understanding of implementation strategy mechanisms. For biomedical and clinical research, these advancements promise to accelerate the adoption of evidence-based interventions, optimize resource allocation in cancer control, and ultimately reduce the cancer burden through more precisely targeted implementation strategies. The growing emphasis on health equity further underscores the need for determinant prioritization methods that address disparities and ensure interventions reach all populations in need.

References

• 1. Key determinants in implementation processes: a systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12374266/]
• 2. Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8062945/]
• 3. Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control: The OPTICC ... [https://www.opticc.org/]
• 4. Social determinants of health and cancer screening ... [https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-022-01995-4]
• 5. Implementation research on common cancers (lung, breast ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12634338/]
• 6. Application of implementation science methods and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12570944/]
• 7. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research ... [https://cfirguide.org/]
• 8. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research ... [https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-025-01450-7]
• 9. EPIS Framework [https://episframework.com/]
• 10. What is EPIS? [https://episframework.com/what-is-epis]
• 11. PARiHS framework for implementing research into practice [https://www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/85]
• 12. Experiences of using the i-PARIHS framework: a co-designed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7310499/]
• 13. Overview [https://cfirguide.org/evaluation-design/overview/]
• 14. Ten recommendations for using implementation ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7427911/]
• 15. Our Focus – The OPTICC Center [https://www.opticc.org/about-us/center-aims-priorities/]
• 16. Why addressing the social determinants of health is ... [https://www.healthpolicypartnership.com/why-addressing-the-social-determinants-of-health-is-essential-in-cancer-policy/]
• 17. The Role of Social Determinants in Cancer Care [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11987860/]
• 18. Extramural Priority Research Areas [https://www.cancer.org/research/we-fund-cancer-research/apply-research-grant/extramural-priority-research-areas.html]
• 19. Advancing Cancer Research Through Science Policy [https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/progress/cpr25-contents/cpr25-advancing-cancer-science-and-medical-research-through-evidence-based-policies/]
• 20. Administrative Supplements to Advance Development of ... [https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/administrative-supplements-advance-development-transdisciplinary-large-scale-population-science-cancer-control-research-projects]
• 21. Oncology Regulatory Expertise and Early Guidance ... [https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/oncology-center-excellence/oncology-regulatory-expertise-and-early-guidance-oreeg]
• 22. The changing global landscape of national cancer control ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470204524004054]
• 23. Political determinants of cancer health - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11840202/]
• 24. Implementation and evaluation of a Project ECHO for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213538325000542]
• 25. Portfolio analysis of NCI-funded policy implementation ... [https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-025-00755-4]
• 26. Ten simple rules on how to develop a stakeholder ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9560496/]
• 27. Stakeholder Engagement: What It Means and Why It Matters [https://simplystakeholders.com/stakeholder-engagement/]
• 28. The Optimizing Implementation in Cancer Control (OPTICC ... [https://impsciuw.org/optimizing-implementation-in-cancer-control-opticc/]
• 29. Evaluating Medical Decision-Making Capacity in Practice [https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/0701/p40.html]
• 30. Assessment of decisional capacity. A systematic review and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12260724/]
• 31. A framework and process for community-engaged, mixed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11461567/]
• 32. Mixed methods evaluation of implementation and outcomes in ... [https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7315-y]
• 33. Methods to quantify the attribution of social determinants ... [https://implementationscience.wustl.edu/items/methods-to-quantify-the-attribution-of-social-determinants-of-health-and-cancer-control-measures-to-cancer-mortality/]
• 34. Protocol of a Mixed Methods Study and Intervention [https://www.researchprotocols.org/2024/1/e52274]
• 35. Implementation of evidence-based primary cancer ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9980207/]
• 36. A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the ... [https://jpro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41687-024-00742-8]
• 37. Aligning organisational priorities and implementation science ... [https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-024-10801-x]
• 38. Text has enhanced contrast | ACT Rule | WAI [https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/act/rules/09o5cg/]
• 39. Text color must provide high contrast with its background [https://docs.acquia.com/web-governance/text-color-must-provide-high-contrast-its-background]
• 40. Node Shapes [https://graphviz.org/doc/info/shapes.html]
• 41. Implementation Strategies Applied in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12534921/]
• 42. Advancing health equity through implementation science [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953623004525]
• 43. Adaptive Trial Design: Could We Use This Approach to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3225172/]
• 44. Adapting Patient Care Protocols in Resource-Limited ... [https://basicmedicalkey.com/adapting-patient-care-protocols-in-resource-limited-environments/]
• 45. Adaptive HTA: striking the right balance between rapid ... [https://www.ifpma.org/insights/adaptive-hta-striking-the-right-balance-between-rapid-assessments-and-local-health-impact/]
• 46. Towards a measurement instrument for determinants of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4195468/]
• 47. Evaluation of measures of sustainability and sustainability ... [https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-022-01252-1]
• 48. Multilevel socioecological determinants of colorectal cancer screening among American Indian communities in New Mexico - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40279075/]
• 49. Implementation Science in Cancer Prevention and Control: A framework for research and programs in low and middle-income countries - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4221499/]
• 50. Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/13/5813]
• 51. Systematic scoping review of external validation studies ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00940-7]
• 52. Implementation research on common cancers (lung, breast ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1671298/full]
• 53. Organizational Determinants, Outcomes Related to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/17/11/1775]
• 54. A systematic review and comparative evaluation to develop ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11983913/]
• 55. Introduction and validation of the open symptom framework [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11136-024-03656-6]
• 56. An analysis of National Cancer Institute-funded scale-up ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/health-services/articles/10.3389/frhs.2025.1624733/full]
• 57. Comparison of methods to engage diverse stakeholder ... [https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43058-023-00457-9]
• 58. Prioritization and multilevel mapping of implementation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39803935/]
• 59. Implementation Strategies [https://impsciuw.org/implementation-science/research/implementation-strategies/]
• 60. Evaluating generalizability of oncology trial results to real- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03352-5]
• 61. session 5: Integrating research, practice and policy priorities to ... [https://www.cancercontrol.info/iccc-5/session-5/]
• 62. Prioritization frameworks [https://www.atlassian.com/agile/product-management/prioritization-framework]
• 63. Organizational Determinants, Outcomes Related to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12153609/]
• 64. Application of implementation science methods and ... [https://www.rti.org/publication/application-of-implementation-science-methods-and-theories-for-ca]
• 65. An analysis of National Cancer Institute-funded scale-up ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12491013/]
• 66. Toolkit: Resources for Implementation Science Researchers [https://www.fic.nih.gov/About/center-global-health-studies/neuroscience-implementation-toolkit/Pages/resources.aspx]
• 67. Research Tools | Division of Cancer Control and Population ... [https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/is/resources/research-tools]