the cpcrn, dcpc, nci, and the community guide: areas for collaboration and supportive work

11

The CPCRN, DCPC, NCI, and the Community Guide: Areas for

Collaboration and Supportive Work

Shawna L. Mercer, MSc, PhDDirector

The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide)

22

Why is collaboration with DPCP, NCI, and the CPCRN important to

the Community Guide?

33

Community Guide: How is it Used?

To inform decision making around:

Practice (initiatives, programs)

Policy making

Research

Funding for research and programs

44

A Typical Approach to Developing and Disseminating Evidence Based

Recommendations: A Push Model

Systematic Review of the

Scientific Evidence

By researchers

Practice, PolicyDissemination

55

Addressing This Challenge

By actively engaging in conducting and disseminating the systematic review those who are expected to be the users and beneficiaries of the research, it is more likely the findings and recommendations will be relevant to their needs

Knowledge to Action Continuum

Participationand Collaboration


DisseminationDissemination

Planning, AssessingUptake and Quality


Identify Research-Practice Gaps


How to MeasureEffects


TranslationTranslation

Systematic Reviews of the Effectiveness of

Community Preventive Services

Surveillance & Evaluation

Monitoring, NeedsAssessment

ActionPractice, Policy

Shawna L. Mercer, MSc, PhD & Lawrence W. Green, DrPH, 2006

77

Community Guide Places Equal Weight on:

The quality of the systematic review methods and analysis

The group processes Participation and

collaboration

88

So Whose Participation Do We Seek in our Systematic Reviews?

Who is to be affected by the recommendations and findings? Who are the intended users? Practitioners (health care, public health, other) Policy makers Health departments Professional, nongovernmental organizations Community-based organizations Employers, employees Minority or special populations Researchers Research funders Educators

99

Intended Users Participation: Are we… Prioritizing the right topics and interventions

for review? Asking the right questions? Staying true to the important questions over

the course of the review? Appropriately considering context, other

issues of applicability to different settings, populations?

Thinking proactively about interpretability, relevance, usefulness, use?

Planning for and undertaking dissemination and translation into action from the outset?

1010

Participants in the Community Guide1. Official Liaisons

>28 federal agency and organizational

• NIH, AHRQ, VA, Armed Forces, PRC Program, etc.

• State and local health departments, boards of health

• Physician, nurse, public health, other organizations

Roles:

• Provide input into prioritization of topics, reviews, Task Force findings and recommendations

• Serve on, or recommend participants for review teams

• Participate in dissemination and translation of Task Force findings, especially to their constituents

1111

Participants in the Community Guide

2. Stakeholders, partners Only interested in specific topics, reviews

• E.g., mental health organizations

Roles:

• Participate on review teams

• Provide input into topic prioritization, reviews, Task Force findings and recommendations

• Participate in dissemination, translation

1212

Participants in Individual Reviews3. Coordination Team (n=~10-15)

Coordinating scientist (typically Community Guide)

Fellows, abstractors (Community Guide) Subject matter experts and users

• From CDC, other federal agencies, academia, practice, policy settings

Task Force member(s) [Liaison(s)]

4. Consultation Team (n=~20-60) subject matter experts

Community Guide Staff

1313

What Kinds of Collaboration and Supportive Actions would be

Valuable?

Knowledge to Action Continuum



DisseminationDissemination







TranslationTranslation

Systematic Reviews of the Effectiveness of

Community Preventive Services

Surveillance & Evaluation

Monitoring, NeedsAssessment

ActionPractice, Policy

Shawna L. Mercer, MSc, PhD & Lawrence W. Green, DrPH, 2006

1515

1. Conduct of Systematic Reviews

A. Increasing Cancer Screening February 2010 Task Force meeting

• Reducing Structural Barriers• One-on-One Education

Remaining interventions:• Client Reminders• Client Incentives• Small Media• Provide Reminders• Multicomponent

Conduct of Systematic Reviews

1717

2. Dissemination, Translation, Implementation

Your ongoing projects to assist intended users with all aspects of: Accessing Community Guide recommendations Assessing community needs and capacities Evidence-informed decision making Implementing Community Guide

recommendations

Community Guide interest: Linking to, featuring your work Featuring your success, implementation stories

1818

3. Evaluation and Feedback Assisting users with evaluating their

programs, initiatives Outcome, process Better understanding the balance between

fidelity and adaptability

Community Guide interest: Identifying additional questions that the

Community Guide should consider in its future rounds

Securing practice-based evidence• Developing and using common measures

1919

4. Filling Research Gaps Identified by the Community Guide

Where the evidence is insufficient Applicability, generalizability

More information regarding populations, settings, deliverers (especially professional vs. lay, promotoras)

Repeat screening Considering the effect of baseline screening

rates on the expected impact of interventions CPCRN providing a “sufficient” body of

evidence Developing and using common measures

Community Guide interest Feeding all of this information back to inform our

work

2020

www.thecommunityguide.org

2121

For More Information

Shawna Mercer, MSc, PhD Community Guide Director

[email protected]

www.thecommunityguide.org

The findings and conclusions in this presentation are those of the presenter and do not necessarily represent the views of CDC.

the cpcrn, dcpc, nci, and the community guide: areas for collaboration and supportive work

Documents