There is increasing pressure on the federal research budget and shifting public opinions about the value of the academic enterprise. We must develop and apply metrics that demonstrate the broad benefits of research for health and society. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) measures the impact of large-scale translational science initiatives, such as the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Moonshot. TSBM provides the scaffolding to illustrate how science has real-world health impacts. We propose an expansion of the TSBM to explicitly include implementation-focused outcomes.

TSBM includes four categories of benefits, including (1) clinical and medical, (2) community and public health, (3) economic, and (4) policy and legislative. Implementation science outcomes serve as a precursor to the model’s established domains of impact and can help to sharpen focus on the translational steps needed to achieve a broad range of impacts. We provide several examples of studies that illustrate these implementation outcomes and other clinical and community benefits.

It is important to consider a broad range of scientific impacts and the conditions that are necessary to achieve them. The expansion of the TSBM to include implementation science outcomes may help to accelerate the cancer community’s ability to achieve the goal of preventing 4 million cancer deaths by 2047.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Network (CPCRN) has been a leader in cancer-related dissemination & implementation (D&I) science. Given increased demand for D&I research, the CPCRN Scholars Program launched in 2021 to expand the number of practitioners, researchers, and trainees proficient in cancer D&I science methods.

The evaluation was informed by a logic model and data collected through electronic surveys. Through an application process (baseline survey), we assessed scholars’ competencies in D&I science domains/subdomains, collected demographic data, and asked scholars to share proposed project ideas. We distributed an exit survey one month after program completion to assess scholars’ experience and engagement with the program and changes in D&I competencies. A follow-up survey was administered to alumni nine months post-program to measure their continued network engagement, accomplishments, and skills.

Three cohorts completed the program, consisting of 20, 17, and 25 scholars in Years 1-3, respectively. There was a significant increase in the total D&I competency scores for all three cohorts for 4 overarching domains and 43 subdomains (MPre = 1.38 MPost = 1.89). Differences were greatest for the domain of Practice-Based Considerations (0.50 mean difference) and Theory & Analysis (0.47 mean difference). Alumni surveys revealed that scholars appreciated access to D&I-focused webinars, toolkits, and training resources. 80% remain engaged with CPCRN workgroups and investigators.

Program evaluation with scholars and alumni helped with ongoing quality assurance, introspection, and iterative program adaptation to meet scholars’ needs. This approach is recommended for large-scale capacity-building training programs.