Skip to main content

Beyond efficacy: a qualitative organizational perspective on key implementation science constructs important to physical activity intervention translation to rural community cancer care sites

Journal of Cancer Survivorship volume 13, pages 537–546 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To identify constructs relevant to implementation of evidence-based physical activity (PA) behavior change interventions for rural women cancer survivors from an organizational perspective.

Methods

During the development of a PA intervention implementation toolkit, 11 potential interventionists and 19 community and organizational stakeholders completed focus groups stratified by role. Narratives were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded for Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs.

Results

Multiple CFIR constructs were identified: Implementation Process (i.e., Engaging, Reflecting and Evaluating), Intervention Characteristics (i.e., Design Quality and Packaging, Cost, Evidence Strength and Quality, Adaptability, Complexity), Inner Setting (i.e., Implementation Readiness, Implementation Climate, Structural Characteristics), Outer Setting (i.e., Patient Needs and Resources, Cosmopolitanism), and Characteristics of Individuals (i.e., Knowledge and Beliefs, Stage of Change). Narratives identified rural implementation barriers (e.g., transportation) and facilitators (e.g., community-oriented). Unique needs of the cancer survivor (e.g., coping during cancer treatment and long-term effects on physical abilities) were emphasized as important barriers potentially addressed through Adaptability and Readiness implementation strategies. Narratives identified multi-level (i.e., individual-, organizational-, and community-level) strategies for targeting the identified constructs.

Conclusions

Fourteen CFIR constructs emerged as potentially important for organizations to consider when implementing PA interventions. Constructs were integrated into our implementation toolkit and research testing their potential mechanisms of action when implementing PA interventions in rural settings is warranted.

Implications

Strategies that target the identified constructs may enhance the implementation of PA programs for rural cancer survivors. Cancer survivors can facilitate these efforts by partnering with their health care providers and community organizations.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Organizations promoting physical activity programs for cancer survivors must overcome implementation barriers including but not limited to cost, necessary expertise, and lack of awareness. Cancer survivors can facilitate these efforts by partnering with their health care providers, cancer center, and local community organizations to raise awareness and champion these efforts. It will “take a village”, with cancer survivors being their own best advocate, to bring physical activity promotion to a broad range of cancer survivors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Speck RM, Courneya KS, Masse LC, Duval S, Schmitz KH. An update of controlled physical activity trials in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cancer Surviv. 2010;4(2):87–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-009-0110-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fan JX, Wen M, Kowaleski-Jones L. Rural-urban differences in objective and subjective measures of physical activity: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2003-2006. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E141. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140189.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Phillips SM, Alfano CM, Perna FM, Glasgow RE. Accelerating translation of physical activity and cancer survivorship research into practice: recommendations for a more integrated and collaborative approach. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2014;23(5):687–99. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Neta G, Sanchez MA, Chambers DA, Phillips SM, Leyva B, Cynkin L, et al. Implementation science in cancer prevention and control: a decade of grant funding by the National Cancer Institute and future directions. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0200-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Dissemination and implementation research in health : translating science to practice. Second edition. ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2018.

  6. Emmons KM, Colditz GA. Realizing the potential of cancer prevention - the role of implementation science. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(10):986–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb1609101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. C IJ, Ottevanger PB, Groen WG, Gerritsen WR, van Harten WH, Hermens RP. Study protocol: an evaluation of the effectiveness, experiences and costs of a patient-directed strategy compared with a multi-faceted strategy to implement physical cancer rehabilitation programmes for cancer survivors in a European healthcare system; a controlled before and after study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0312-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leyva B, Allen JD, Ospino H, Tom LS, Negron R, Buesa R, et al. Enhancing capacity among faith-based organizations to implement evidence-based cancer control programs: a community-engaged approach. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(3):517–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0513-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Leach HJ, Gainforth HL, Culos-Reed SN. Delivery of an exercise program for breast cancer survivors on treatment in a community setting. Translational Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine. 2017;2(24):153–61.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Pinto B, Stein K, Dunsiger S. Peer mentorship to promote physical activity among cancer survivors: effects on quality of life. Psychooncology. 2015;24:1295–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.3884.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Beidas RS, Paciotti B, Barg F, Branas AR, Brown JC, Glanz K, et al. A hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based exercise intervention for breast cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2014;2014(50):338–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu033.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Basen-Engquist K, Alfano CM, Maitin-Shepard M, Thomson CA, Schmitz KH, Pinto BM, et al. Agenda for translating physical activity, nutrition, and weight management interventions for cancer survivors into clinical and community practice. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2017;25(Suppl 2):S9–S22. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Holt CL, Chambers DA. Opportunities and challenges in conducting community-engaged dissemination/implementation research. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(3):389–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0520-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Hudon A, Gervais MJ, Hunt M. The contribution of conceptual frameworks to knowledge translation interventions in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2015;95(4):630–9. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20130483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2016;11:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Bozsik F, Berman M, Shook R, Summar S, DeWit E, Carlson J. Implementation contextual factors related to youth advocacy for healthy eating and active living. Transl Behav Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibx006.

  19. Petrescu-Prahova M, Belza B, Kohn M, Miyawaki C. Implementation and maintenance of a community-based older adult physical activity program. The Gerontologist. 2016;56(4):677–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnv024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Teeters LA, Heerman WJ, Schlundt D, Harris D, Barkin SL. Community readiness assessment for obesity research: pilot implementation of the healthier families programme. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0262-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Pinto BM, Waldemore M, Rosen R. A community-based partnership to promote exercise among cancer survivors: lessons learned. Int J Behav Med. 2015;22(3):328–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-014-9395-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rogers LQ, Courneya KS, Anton PM, Hopkins-Price P, Verhulst S, Vicari SK, et al. Effects of the BEAT Cancer physical activity behavior change intervention on physical activity, aerobic fitness, and quality of life in breast cancer survivors: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;149(1):109–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3216-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers LQ, McAuley E, Anton PM, Courneya KS, Vicari S, Hopkins-Price P, et al. Better exercise adherence after treatment for cancer (BEAT Cancer) study: rationale, design, and methods. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(1):124–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2011.09.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. United States Department of Agriculture, Rural-urban continuum codes [database on the Internet]2013. Accessed: 29 Jan 2018.

  25. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus groups : a practical guide for applied research. 5th edition. ed. thousand oaks, California: SAGE; 2015.

  26. Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research / David L. Morgan. 2nd ed. Qualitative research methods series, vol 16. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications; 1997.

  27. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Keith RE, Crosson JC, O;Malley AS, Cromp D, Taylor EF. Using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) to produce actionable findings: a rapid-cycle evaluation approach to improving implementation. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0550-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Joseph DA, Redwood D, DeGroff A, Butler EL. Use of evidence-based interventions to address disparities in colorectal cancer screening. MMWR Suppl. 2016;65(1):21–8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6501a5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rhodes SD, Leichliter JS, Sun CJ, Bloom FR. The HoMBReS and HoMBReS por un cambio interventions to reduce HIV disparities among immigrant Hispanic/Latino men. MMWR Suppl. 2016;65(1):51–6. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6501a8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Woods ER, Bhaumik U, Sommer SJ, Chan E, Tsopelas L, Fleegler EW, et al. Community asthma initiative to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities among children with asthma. MMWR Suppl. 2016;65(1):11–20. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6501a4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ory MG, Lee S, Zollinger A, Bhurtyal K, Jiang L, Smith ML. Translation of fit & strong! For middle-aged and older adults: examining implementation and effectiveness of a lay-led model in central Texas. Front Public Health. 2014;2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00187.

  34. Blanchard CM, Courneya KS, Stein K. American Cancer Society’s SCS, II. Cancer survivors’ adherence to lifestyle behavior recommendations and associations with health-related quality of life: results from the American Cancer Society’s SCS-II. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2198–204. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.14.6217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Meit M, Knudson A, Gilbert T, Yu AT, Tanenbaum E, Ormson E, et al. The 2014 update of the rural-urban chartbook: Rural Health Reform Policy Research Center2014.

  36. Ryba MM, Brothers BM, Andersen BL. Implementation of an evidence-based biobehavioral treatment for cancer patients. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7(4):648–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-016-0459-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Krause J, Van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, et al. Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implement Sci. 2014;9:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0102-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Lewis CC, Scott K, Marriott BR. A methodology for generating a tailored implementation blueprint: an exemplar from a youth residential setting. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0761-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R21CA182601 and R25CA76023). Dr. Baumann is supported by 3U01HL133994-02S1, R01HG009351, U24HL136790, and UL1TR00234.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine, Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294-4410, USA

    Laura Q. Rogers, Maria Pisu & Robert A. Oster

  2. School of Health Professions, Department of Nutrition Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1675 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Latoya Goncalves, Danielle Hessong & Fatima Iqbal

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine and Center for Innovation in Health Equity Research, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 910 Madison Avenue, Memphis, TN, 38163, USA

    Michelle Y. Martin

  4. School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Ave S, RPHB 430, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA

    Tamika L. Smith

  5. School of Health Professions, Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1716 9th Ave S, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Haiyan Qu & Richard Shewchuk

  6. Russell Medical Center, 3316 US-280, Alexander City, AL, 35010, USA

    Mary E. Sheffield & Alex Minter

  7. Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

    Ana A. Baumann

Authors
  1. Laura Q. Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Latoya Goncalves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michelle Y. Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Pisu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tamika L. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Danielle Hessong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Robert A. Oster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Haiyan Qu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Richard Shewchuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fatima Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mary E. Sheffield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alex Minter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ana A. Baumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Q. Rogers.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rogers, L.Q., Goncalves, L., Martin, M.Y. et al. Beyond efficacy: a qualitative organizational perspective on key implementation science constructs important to physical activity intervention translation to rural community cancer care sites. J Cancer Surviv 13, 537–546 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00773-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00773-x

Keywords

  • Oncology
  • Supportive care
  • Qualitative
  • Implementation
  • Exercise