Speeding implementation in cancer: The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control.

The National Cancer Institute's Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) Network represents a large-scale initiative to create an infrastructure to support and enable the efficient, effective, and equitable translation of approaches and evidence-based treatments to reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes. This Cancer MoonshotSM-funded ISC3 Network consists of 7 P50 Centers that support and advance the rapid development, testing, and refinement of innovative approaches to implement a range of evidence-based cancer control interventions. The Centers were designed to have research-practice partnerships at their core and to create the opportunity for a series of pilot studies that could explore new and sometimes risky ideas and embed in their infrastructure a 2-way engagement and collaboration essential to stimulating lasting change. ISC3 also seeks to enhance capacity of researchers, practitioners, and communities to apply implementation science approaches, methods, and measures. The Organizing Framework that guides the work of ISC3 highlights a collective set of 3 core areas of collaboration within and among Centers, including to 1) assess and incorporate dynamic, multilevel context; 2) develop and conduct rapid and responsive pilot and methods studies; and 3) build capacity for knowledge development and exchange. Core operating principles that undergird the Framework include open collaboration, consideration of the dynamic context, and engagement of multiple implementation partners to advance pragmatic methods and health equity and facilitate leadership and capacity building across implementation science and cancer control.

Assessing Provider-, Clinic-, and Structural-Level Barriers and Recommendations to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Uptake: A Qualitative Investigation Among Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence, Intimate Partner Violence Service Providers, and Healthcare Providers.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) relates to HIV susceptibility and acquisition. Existing research examined barriers to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake among women but few studies assess uptake and delivery among IPV service providers, along with provider-, clinic-, and structural-level barriers. We conducted 34 semi-structured interviews with PrEP-eligible cisgender heterosexual women experiencing IPV, Reproductive Health providers, PrEP providers, and IPV service providers in Northeast US. Systems theory was used to examine barriers from individuals who either work closely with or are part of the population. The framework method was used to draw descriptive and explanatory conclusions. Findings suggest limited knowledge for Reproductive Health and IPV Service Providers. Providers often did not feel equipped to discussed PrEP in visits or focused efforts solely on safety. Expanding PrEP awareness is necessary and marketing should include women. Future research should investigate how providers can work collaboratively across sectors to ensure women receive comprehensive trauma-informed care.

RESUMEN: La violencia de pareja (IPV) se relaciona con la susceptibilidad y la adquisición del VIH. Las investigaciones existentes examinaron las barreras a la aceptación de la profilaxis previa a la exposición (PrEP) entre las mujeres, pero pocos estudios evalúan la aceptación y la entrega entre los proveedores de servicios de IPV, junto con las barreras a nivel de proveedor, clínica y estructura. Realizamos 34 entrevistas semiestructuradas con mujeres heterosexuales cisgénero elegibles para PrEP que experimentan IPV, proveedores de salud reproductiva, proveedores de la PrEP y proveedores de servicios contra la violencia de género en el noreste de EE.UU. Se utilizó la teoría de sistemas para examinar las barreras de las personas que trabajan estrechamente con la población o que forman parte de ella. Se utilizó el método del marco para extraer conclusiones descriptivas y explicativas. Los resultados sugieren un conocimiento limitado para los proveedores de servicios de salud reproductiva y de IPV. Los proveedores a menudo no se sentían preparados para hablar de la PrEP en las visitas o centraban sus esfuerzos únicamente en la seguridad. Es necesario ampliar el conocimiento de la PrEP y el marketing debe incluir a las mujeres. La investigación futura debería investigar cómo los proveedores pueden trabajar en colaboración entre sectores para garantizar que las mujeres reciban una atención integral informada sobre el trauma.

Associations between state intimate partner violence-related firearm policies and injuries among women and men who experience intimate partner violence.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive state firearm policies related to intimate partner violence (IPV) may have a significant public health impact on non-lethal IPV-related injuries. Research indicates that more restrictive firearm policies may reduce risk for intimate partner homicide, however it is unclear whether firearm policies prevent or reduce the risk of non-lethal IPV-related injuries. This study sought to examine associations between state-level policies and injuries among U.S. IPV survivors. METHODS: Individual-level data were drawn from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a nationally-representative study of noninstitutionalized adults. State-level data were drawn from a firearm policy compendium. Multivariable regressions were used to test associations of individual policies with non-fatal IPV-related injuries (N = 5493). Regression models were also conducted to explore differences in the policy-injury associations among women and men survivors. RESULTS: Three categories of policies were associated with IPV-related injuries. The odds of injuries was lower for IPV survivors living in states that prohibited firearm possession and require firearm relinquishment among persons convicted of IPV-related misdemeanors (aOR [95% CI] = .76 [.59, .97]); prohibited firearm possession and require firearm relinquishment among persons subject to IPV-related restraining orders (aOR [95% CI] = .81 [.66, .98]); and prohibited firearm possession among convicted of stalking (aOR [95% CI] = .82 [.68, .98]) than IPV survivors living in states without these policies. There was a significant difference between women and men survivors in the association between IPV-related misdemeanors policy and injuries (B [SE] = .60 [.29]), such that the association was stronger for men survivors (aOR [95% CI] = .10 [.06, .17]) than women survivors (aOR [95% CI] = .60 [.48, .76]). CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive state firearm policies regarding IPV may provide unique opportunities to protect IPV survivors from injuries.

Birth Control Sabotage as a Correlate of Women's Sexual Health Risk: An Exploratory Study.

INTRODUCTION: To explore associations between birth control sabotage, a form of reproductive coercion, and women's sexual risk among women attending family planning health centers. Data were collected from a 2017 cross-sectional online survey of 675 women who attended Connecticut Planned Parenthood centers. Participants reported birth control sabotage; sexual risk (i.e., inconsistent condom use during vaginal and anal sex in the past 6 months, lifetime sexually transmitted infection diagnosis, lifetime exchange sex [trading sex for money, drugs, or other goods], and multiple sexual partners in the past 6 months); and sociodemographics. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations between birth control sabotage and women's sexual risk. RESULTS: One in six women (16.4%; n = 111) reported experiencing birth control sabotage. Women who reported birth control sabotage had a greater odds of ever having an sexually transmitted infection (adjusted odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.60; p = .003), ever engaging in exchange sex (adjusted odds ratio, 2.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-6.53; p = .020), and having multiple sexual partners in the past 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-3.18; p = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate increased engagement in sexual risk taking among women who reported birth control sabotage compared with women did not.