Explore the vast range of titles available.

As funding for large translational research consortia increases across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), focused working groups provide an opportunity to leverage the power of unique networks to conduct high-impact science and offer a strategy for building collaborative infrastructure to sustain networks long-term. This sustainment leverages the existing NIH investments, amplifying the impact and creating conditions for future innovative translational research. However, few resources exist that detail practical strategies for establishing and sustaining working groups in consortia. Here, we describe how the Coordinating Center for the National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) utilized principles derived from the Science of Team Science to develop replicable strategies for building and sustaining an effective working group-led consortium. These strategies include continually engaging community members in strategic planning, prioritizing diversity in leadership and membership, creating multi-level opportunities for leadership and participation, providing intensive community management and facilitation, and incentivizing projects that support the consortium sustainment. When assessing the impact of these interventions through qualitative exit interviews, four key themes emerged: through the C3I working group consortium, members co-created new dissemination products, gained new insights and innovations, enhanced local program implementation, and invested in cross-network collaboration to support sustained engagement in the initiative.

Background The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency—i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. Methods DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. Results In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 ( SD  = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 ( M  = 29.15, SD  = 28.65, n  = 11) vs. cohort 2 ( M  = 17.99, SD  = 10.16, n  = 5), with point-of-care ( M  = 33.90, SD  = 28.63, n  = 9) vs. no point-of-care services ( M  = 15.59, SD  = 14.31, n  = 7), larger ( M  = 33.63, SD  = 30.38, n  = 8) vs. smaller center size ( M  = 17.70, SD  = 15.00, n  = 8), and higher ( M  = 29.65, SD  = 30.99, n  = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence ( M  = 21.67, SD  = 17.21, n  = 8). Conclusion Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Background Though tobacco use treatment (TUT) after a cancer diagnosis can improve cancer treatment outcomes and survival, delivery of evidence‐based TUT remains underutilized in cancer care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) implemented TUT across 52 NCI‐Designated Cancer Centers, but there is little information on its long‐term sustainment. This study assesses TUT sustainment beyond initial implementation in C3I. Methods A web‐based survey across 52 C3I centers was conducted during the sustainment phase (2023–2024) following NCI C3I funding. The surveys assessed program funding and the sustainment of the overall program, program components and practices, assessment of implementation and patient outcomes, partnerships, and program scale‐out across settings. The survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Among 47 responding sites (90% response rate), 83% reported continued TUT activity after NCI funding ended with annual operating budgets between$100,000 and $ 250,000. Most sites (78.7%) reported some institutional support, while few relied on fee‐for‐service reimbursement (27.7%), bundled payments (8.1%), or support from grants (27.7%) and philanthropic donations (21.3%). Key program components including electronic health record modifications, outcomes reporting, and staff training were largely maintained, with nearly all (46) sites continuing to screen for tobacco use and refer patients to TUT. Perceived program partnerships were strongest with clinicians and departmental leadership, and some programs were scaled out to primary care and other specialties. Conclusions Results confirm that most cancer centers sustained key TUT program functions and partnerships with some increasing TUT delivery across larger cancer treatment settings.