Focus of Study: Tailored ImplementationPIECESNCT06718322
PIECES - Towards Large-Scale Adaptation and Tailored Implementation of Primary Cancer Prevention Programs
A study testing Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT) in people with Focus of Study: Tailored Implementation, run by Hidde van der Ploeg at 11 sites in 9 countries.
Trial summary
The PIECES project aims to evaluate the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT), an online implementation support toolkit that aids implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Focus of Study: Tailored Implementation
- What is being tested?
- Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 100 participants
- Where
- 11 sitesin 9 countries
- Study dates
- 1 Dec 2024to Dec 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- User of the PCP-IT, involved in implementation of PCP programs.
Who cannot join
- None.
Trial locations and contacts
11 sites in 9 countries. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
11 sites in 9 countries
Germany3 sites
German Network for Tobacco Free Healthcare Services
Berlin
Hannover Medical School
Hanover
German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ)
Heidelberg
Ukraine1 site
State Institution Public Health Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine
Kyiv
About this study
Official title: Towards Large-Scale Adaptation and Tailored Implementation of Primary Cancer Prevention Programs Across 9 Countries
The PIECES project aims to evaluate the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT), an online implementation support toolkit that aids implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs).
The primary aim of the PIECES study is to support and learn from the process of selecting, adapting, and implementing existing evidence-based programs to improve implementation outcomes and by that, improve the reach and effectiveness of primary cancer prevention programmes in real-world settings.
Read more
The study objectives are:
- To assess whether the PCP-IT is usable and if implementation teams are satisfied with the tool;
- To assess what works for whom in using the PCP-IT for selecting, adapting, and implementing PCP programs;
- To assess whether the PCP-IT is feasible and effective in improving acceptability, adoption, penetration, and sustainable implementation of the PCP programs.
The PCP-IT will be used by various implementation settings across 9 countries (8 European countries and Australia). A multi-site case comparison design is used to generate in-depth knowledge about the performance and working mechanisms of the PCP-IT. Similarities, differences, and patterns across the different implementation sites will be investigated using a Realist Evaluation approach.
Read the detailed description
A range of modifiable factors are associated with cancer incidence among the population of the European Union (EU) and beyond. These include: 1) tobacco smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke, 2) alcohol consumption, 3) poor physical activity, 4) HPV infection, 5) sun exposure, and 6) poor diet. Various Primary Cancer Prevention (PCP) programs are currently available to address these risk factors with proven effectiveness. Decision-makers and implementers face the challenge of: 1) selecting appropriate and suitable programs, 2) tailoring the programs to the local context and consulting stakeholders, and 3) developing a tailored plan (i.e., strategies) for effectively implementing the selected and adapted PCP program. The lack of guidance and support for this complex and time-consuming process leads to two undesired outcomes: 1) the selection of ineffective or poorly adapted PCP programs, and 2) the application of ineffective implementation strategies that do not target local and context-dependent barriers to implementation. These scenarios are likely to reduce the effectiveness of primary cancer prevention programs in real-world settings, leading to inefficiencies and failing to prevent new cancer cases.
The PIECES project involves the development and evaluation of an online implementation support toolkit (the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)). The PCP-IT aims to support implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs). The PCP-IT builds upon the theory-base and the proven to be effective ItFits tool. The PCP-IT encompasses a total of six modules. The modules are designed to guide implementers through the process of selecting and adapting PCP programs, identifying and addressing barriers, and developing and applying tailored implementation strategies. The core resources contributing to the generative mechanisms of the toolkit include: 1) a repository of primary cancer prevention programs, 2) a repository of determinants of practice, 3) a repository of implementation strategies, 4) stakeholder consultation at all stages, 5) an online community of implementation practitioners, and 6) structured stepped process flows, instructions, examples and worksheets for working with the materials.
In the PIECES study, a multi-site case comparison design is chosen to generate in-depth knowledge about the performance and working mechanisms of the PCP-IT. Similarities, differences, and patterns across the cases (i.e. different implementation settings) will be investigated using a Realist Evaluation approach. A pre/post-test measure will be applied to descriptively assess implementation outcomes. A time horizon of two years is selected to assess change over time.
The PCP-IT will be used in various countries and implementation settings, aiming for a rich representation of healthcare systems (Spain, the Netherlands, Albania, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Ukraine, Germany (3 settings), and Australia).
Within each implementation site, different types of participants with specific roles can be distinguished:
- implementation coordinator: oversees the implementation process and can coordinate one or multiple implementation teams.
- implementation lead: oversees the implementation process of one implementation team and is part of that team. This person is responsible for working through the PCP-IT with their implementation team. It is possible that the implementation coordinator and implementation lead is the same person.
- implementation core team: the implementation team consists of the toolkit users who are the group responsible for selecting and adapting the PCP, as well as developing a tailored implementation plan.
- service deliverers: the team/persons responsible for the actual implementation of the selected PCP and tailored implementation strategies.
The PCP-IT will be evaluated through various levels of evalution, with a primary focus on evaluating the use of the PCP-IT and implementation outcomes of the PCP programs.
- PCP-IT: evaluating the use of the PCP-IT by the implementation teams.
- PCP implementation: evaluating implementation outcomes of the implemented PCP programs
- PCP impact: evaluating the impact of the implemented PCP programs (in terms of changes in behaviour the PCP program is targeting) (conducted if feasible).
The primary focus of the evaluation study will be on evaluating the use of the PCP-IT (level 1) and the implementation outcomes of the PCP program (level 2). Level 3 evaluation, which involves evaluating the impact of the implemented PCP programs on targeted behavior changes, is not part of the central evaluation study. However, implementation sites are encouraged to conduct level 3 evaluations if resources such as time and funding permit. While level 3 evaluation is not critically necessary from a research perspective-since PCP programs included in the PCP-IT repository have already demonstrated effectiveness-it is important from a monitoring perspective. Conducting level 3 evaluations can for example help implementation sites to:
- Assess whether the adapted PCP programs are achieving the desired outcomes
- Provide ongoing feedback to refine and improve the programs, ensuring the programs remain effective and relevant
- Show stakeholders, including funders and participants, that the programs are making a tangible difference, thereby justifying continued support and investment.
For this third level of evaluation, the specific details and ethical approvals are managed by each local implementation site. However, recommendations grounded in previous research are provided to guide the process and help maintain consistency across sites.
- Conditions
- Focus of Study: Tailored Implementation
- Being tested
- Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)
- Keywords
- PIECES, Tailored implementation, Implementation support, PCP-IT, Primary Cancer Prevention
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)Other
The PCP-IT is an online implementation support toolkit which aims to support implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs). The PCP-IT builds upon the theory-base and the proven to be effective ItFits tool. The PCP-IT encompasses a total of six modules which are designed to guide implementers through the process of selecting and adapting PCP programs, identifying and addressing barriers, and developing and applying tailored implementation strategies. The toolkit includes: (1) a repository of PCP programs, (2) a repository of determinants of practice, (3) a repository of implementation strategies, (4) stakeholder consultation at all stages, (5) an online community of implementation practitioners, and (6) structured stepped process flows, instructions, examples and worksheets for working with the materials. https://global.itfits-toolkit.com/
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Local implementation teams | Experimental | The local implementation teams for this study, referred to as the implementers of the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT), are the primary users of the toolkit and play a central role in tailoring and implementing cancer prevention interventions. Each team is responsible for selecting and adapting the intervention to meet local needs and developing a tailored implementation plan. Each team is led by an implementation lead, who directly oversees the implementation process and ensures the team effectively uses the PCP-IT to guide their work. In some cases, the implementation lead may also serve as the implementation coordinator. The coordinator's role is to provide higher-level oversight and may involve coordinating multiple implementation teams across various locations, such as hospitals, or focusing on a single team at one site. Receives: Other: Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Competencies in Implementation
Participants are asked to rate how skilled they feel in various implementation competencies. Respondents evaluate their skills for each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all to extremely (not at all, slightly, moderately, very, extremely).
Measured: Month 0, repeated every six months until month 24.
Secondary outcomes (6)
Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC)
Participants are asked to indicate how they perceive the readiness of their organization to implement a cancer prevention program. This is assessed using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) instrument, which includes 12 items about an organizational readiness to implement a cancer prevention program. Respondents rate their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from I disagree to I agree (I disagree, I somewhat, disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, I somewhat agree, I agree).
Measured: Month 0, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived Ease of Use
Participants are asked to indicate their agreement with 4 items about how useful they perceive the toolkit to be in their job. This is assessed using the Perceived Ease of Use instrument. Respondents rate their level of agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from I strongly disagree to I strongly agree (I strongly disagree, I disagree I somewhat, disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, I somewhat agree, I agree, I strongly agree).
Measured: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived Usefulness
Participants are asked to indicate their agreement with 4 items about how easy they think it is to work with the toolkit. This is assessed using the Perceived Usefulness instrument. Respondents rate their level of agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from I strongly disagree to I strongly agree (I strongly disagree, I disagree I somewhat, disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, I somewhat agree, I agree, I strongly agree).
Measured: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Satisfaction with the PCP-IT
Participants are asked to rate their satisfaction with the toolkit using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Respondents provide a score reflecting their satisfaction with specific modules or components of the toolkit. The VAS ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no satisfaction, 5 represents neutral, and 10 represents extreme satisfaction.
Measured: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived impact of the PCP-IT
Participants are asked to rate the extent to which they think the toolkit has contributed to various implementation steps using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The VAS ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents non-existent, 5 represents somewhat, and 10 represents very much.
Measured: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Behavioral Intention
Participants are asked to indicate their agreement with 4 items about their intention or likelihood of using the toolkit in the future. This is assessed using the Behavioral Intention instrument. Respondents rate their level of agreement with each item on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from I strongly disagree to I strongly agree (I strongly disagree, I disagree I somewhat, disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, I somewhat agree, I agree, I strongly agree).
Measured: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Dec 2024
- Study start1 Dec 2024
- Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Focus of Study: Tailored ImplementationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- This study evaluates an implementation intervention targeting professionals implementing a cancer prevention program. The intervention is an online toolkit that supports implementers in selecting and adapting an evidence-based cancer prevention program and developing a tailored implementation plan.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Hidde van der Ploeg
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Helse-Bergen HF, Stichting Trimbos-Instituut, Hannover Medical School, Universiteti i Tiranes, Public Health Center of MOH of Ukraine, German Cancer Research Center, University of Stirling, University of Limerick, The University of Queensland, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge, Dreamedsoft Solutions, German Network for Tobacco Free Healthcare Services
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Hidde van der Ploeg, Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc
- Investigators
- Femke van Nassau, PhD, Study chair, Amsterdam UMC
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06718322
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Project 101104390
- Acronym
- PIECES
- Status last verified
- Oct 2024
- First submitted
- 13 Nov 2024
- Last updated
- 9 Apr 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Vis C, Schuurmans J, Aouizerate B, Atipei Craggs M, Batterham P, Buhrmann L, Calear A, Cerga Pashoja A, Christensen H, Dozeman E, Duedal Pedersen C, Ebert DD, Etzelmueller A, Fanaj N, Finch TL, Hanssen D, Hegerl U, Hoogendoorn A, Mathiasen K, May C, Meksi A, Mustafa S, O'Dea B, Oehler C, Piera-Jimenez J, Potthoff S, Qirjako G, Rapley T, Rosmalen J, Sacco Y, Samalin L, Skjoth MM, Tarp K, Titzler I, Van der Eycken E, van Genugten CR, Whitton A, Zanalda E, Smit JH, Riper H. Effectiveness of Self-guided Tailored Implementation Strategies in Integrating and Embedding Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Routine Mental Health Care: Results of a Multicenter Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 3;25:e41532. doi: 10.2196/41532.
PubMed 36735287Padek M, Colditz G, Dobbins M, Koscielniak N, Proctor EK, Sales AE, Brownson RC. Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: an exploratory analysis using card sorts. Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 12;10:114. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0304-3.
PubMed 26264453Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 10;9:7. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-7.
PubMed 24410955Hensen N, Smit RA, Barrero A, Breunese J, Burazeri G, Caini S, Fernandez E, Gorini G, Grams L, Mercader CG, Walters BH, Hinderaker HK, Janda M, Jimenez-Rueda A, Jaffery JI, Kahlhofer J, Francisca Kenter RM, Lodding P, Macaulay L, Marushko K, Ramiro-Pareta M, O'Donnell R, Porthe V, Pontes C, Piera-Jimenez J, Qirjako G, Rocliffe P, Semple S, Troelstra SA, van der Ploeg HP, Willemsen MC, Woods C, Ylli A, Vis C, Martinez C, Nassau FV; PIECES consortium. The PIECES multi-site comparative case study protocol: mixed methods implementation evaluation of adapting, implementing and tailoring primary cancer prevention programmes in diverse contexts. Implement Sci Commun. 2026 Jun 23. doi: 10.1186/s43058-026-01002-0. Online ahead of print.
PubMed 42337627
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 9 Apr 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Towards Large-Scale Adaptation and Tailored Implementation of Primary Cancer Prevention Programs Across 9 Countries
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06718322
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- PIECES / Project 101104390
- Conditions
- Focus of Study: Tailored Implementation
- Keywords
- PIECES, Tailored implementation, Implementation support, PCP-IT, Primary Cancer Prevention
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Enrolling by invitation
- Enrolment
- 100 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Hidde van der PloegUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Helse-Bergen HF, Stichting Trimbos-Instituut, Hannover Medical School, Universiteti i Tiranes, Public Health Center of MOH of Ukraine, German Cancer Research Center, University of Stirling, University of Limerick, The University of Queensland, Institut Català d'Oncologia, Istituto per lo Studio, la Prevenzione e la Rete Oncologica, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge, Dreamedsoft Solutions, German Network for Tobacco Free Healthcare Services
- Study start
- 1 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 5 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The PIECES project aims to evaluate the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT), an online implementation support toolkit that aids implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs).
The primary aim of the PIECES study is to support and learn from the process of selecting, adapting, and implementing existing evidence-based programs to improve implementation outcomes and by that, improve the reach and effectiveness of primary cancer prevention programmes in real-world settings.
The study objectives are:
- To assess whether the PCP-IT is usable and if implementation teams are satisfied with the tool;
- To assess what works for whom in using the PCP-IT for selecting, adapting, and implementing PCP programs;
- To assess whether the PCP-IT is feasible and effective in improving acceptability, adoption, penetration, and sustainable implementation of the PCP programs.
The PCP-IT will be used by various implementation settings across 9 countries (8 European countries and Australia). A multi-site case comparison design is used to generate in-depth knowledge about the performance and working mechanisms of the PCP-IT. Similarities, differences, and patterns across the different implementation sites will be investigated using a Realist Evaluation approach.
Detailed description
A range of modifiable factors are associated with cancer incidence among the population of the European Union (EU) and beyond. These include: 1) tobacco smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke, 2) alcohol consumption, 3) poor physical activity, 4) HPV infection, 5) sun exposure, and 6) poor diet. Various Primary Cancer Prevention (PCP) programs are currently available to address these risk factors with proven effectiveness. Decision-makers and implementers face the challenge of: 1) selecting appropriate and suitable programs, 2) tailoring the programs to the local context and consulting stakeholders, and 3) developing a tailored plan (i.e., strategies) for effectively implementing the selected and adapted PCP program. The lack of guidance and support for this complex and time-consuming process leads to two undesired outcomes: 1) the selection of ineffective or poorly adapted PCP programs, and 2) the application of ineffective implementation strategies that do not target local and context-dependent barriers to implementation. These scenarios are likely to reduce the effectiveness of primary cancer prevention programs in real-world settings, leading to inefficiencies and failing to prevent new cancer cases.
The PIECES project involves the development and evaluation of an online implementation support toolkit (the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)). The PCP-IT aims to support implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs). The PCP-IT builds upon the theory-base and the proven to be effective ItFits tool. The PCP-IT encompasses a total of six modules. The modules are designed to guide implementers through the process of selecting and adapting PCP programs, identifying and addressing barriers, and developing and applying tailored implementation strategies. The core resources contributing to the generative mechanisms of the toolkit include: 1) a repository of primary cancer prevention programs, 2) a repository of determinants of practice, 3) a repository of implementation strategies, 4) stakeholder consultation at all stages, 5) an online community of implementation practitioners, and 6) structured stepped process flows, instructions, examples and worksheets for working with the materials.
In the PIECES study, a multi-site case comparison design is chosen to generate in-depth knowledge about the performance and working mechanisms of the PCP-IT. Similarities, differences, and patterns across the cases (i.e. different implementation settings) will be investigated using a Realist Evaluation approach. A pre/post-test measure will be applied to descriptively assess implementation outcomes. A time horizon of two years is selected to assess change over time.
The PCP-IT will be used in various countries and implementation settings, aiming for a rich representation of healthcare systems (Spain, the Netherlands, Albania, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Italy, Ukraine, Germany (3 settings), and Australia).
Within each implementation site, different types of participants with specific roles can be distinguished:
- implementation coordinator: oversees the implementation process and can coordinate one or multiple implementation teams.
- implementation lead: oversees the implementation process of one implementation team and is part of that team. This person is responsible for working through the PCP-IT with their implementation team. It is possible that the implementation coordinator and implementation lead is the same person.
- implementation core team: the implementation team consists of the toolkit users who are the group responsible for selecting and adapting the PCP, as well as developing a tailored implementation plan.
- service deliverers: the team/persons responsible for the actual implementation of the selected PCP and tailored implementation strategies.
The PCP-IT will be evaluated through various levels of evalution, with a primary focus on evaluating the use of the PCP-IT and implementation outcomes of the PCP programs.
- PCP-IT: evaluating the use of the PCP-IT by the implementation teams.
- PCP implementation: evaluating implementation outcomes of the implemented PCP programs
- PCP impact: evaluating the impact of the implemented PCP programs (in terms of changes in behaviour the PCP program is targeting) (conducted if feasible).
The primary focus of the evaluation study will be on evaluating the use of the PCP-IT (level 1) and the implementation outcomes of the PCP program (level 2). Level 3 evaluation, which involves evaluating the impact of the implemented PCP programs on targeted behavior changes, is not part of the central evaluation study. However, implementation sites are encouraged to conduct level 3 evaluations if resources such as time and funding permit. While level 3 evaluation is not critically necessary from a research perspective-since PCP programs included in the PCP-IT repository have already demonstrated effectiveness-it is important from a monitoring perspective. Conducting level 3 evaluations can for example help implementation sites to:
- Assess whether the adapted PCP programs are achieving the desired outcomes
- Provide ongoing feedback to refine and improve the programs, ensuring the programs remain effective and relevant
- Show stakeholders, including funders and participants, that the programs are making a tangible difference, thereby justifying continued support and investment.
For this third level of evaluation, the specific details and ethical approvals are managed by each local implementation site. However, recommendations grounded in previous research are provided to guide the process and help maintain consistency across sites.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- This study evaluates an implementation intervention targeting professionals implementing a cancer prevention program. The intervention is an online toolkit that supports implementers in selecting and adapting an evidence-based cancer prevention program and developing a tailored implementation plan.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Local implementation teams | Experimental | Other: Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)The local implementation teams for this study, referred to as the implementers of the Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT), are the primary users of the toolkit and play a central role in tailoring and implementing cancer prevention interventions. Each team is responsible for selecting and adapting the intervention to meet local needs and developing a tailored implementation plan. Each team is led by an implementation lead, who directly oversees the implementation process and ensures the team effectively uses the PCP-IT to guide their work. In some cases, the implementation lead may also serve as the implementation coordinator. The coordinator's role is to provide higher-level oversight and may involve coordinating multiple implementation teams across various locations, such as hospitals, or focusing on a single team at one site. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- User of the PCP-IT, involved in implementation of PCP programs.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT)The PCP-IT is an online implementation support toolkit which aims to support implementation teams in improving the implementation of primary cancer prevention programs (PCPs). The PCP-IT builds upon the theory-base and the proven to be effective ItFits tool. The PCP-IT encompasses a total of six modules which are designed to guide implementers through the process of selecting and adapting PCP programs, identifying and addressing barriers, and developing and applying tailored implementation strategies. The toolkit includes: (1) a repository of PCP programs, (2) a repository of determinants of practice, (3) a repository of implementation strategies, (4) stakeholder consultation at all stages, (5) an online community of implementation practitioners, and (6) structured stepped process flows, instructions, examples and worksheets for working with the materials. https://global.itfits-toolkit.com/ | Other | Local implementation teams |
Primary outcome
Competencies in Implementation
Time frame: Month 0, repeated every six months until month 24.
Participants are asked to rate how skilled they feel in various implementation competencies. Respondents evaluate their skills for each item on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from not at all to extremely (not at all, slightly, moderately, very, extremely).
6 secondary outcomes
Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC)
Time frame: Month 0, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived Ease of Use
Time frame: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived Usefulness
Time frame: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Satisfaction with the PCP-IT
Time frame: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Perceived impact of the PCP-IT
Time frame: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Behavioral Intention
Time frame: Month 6, repeated every six months until month 24.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 9 Apr 2025.
- Background: PubMed 36735287Vis C, Schuurmans J, Aouizerate B, Atipei Craggs M, Batterham P, Buhrmann L, Calear A, Cerga Pashoja A, Christensen H, Dozeman E, Duedal Pedersen C, Ebert DD, Etzelmueller A, Fanaj N, Finch TL, Hanssen D, Hegerl U, Hoogendoorn A, Mathiasen K, May C, Meksi A, Mustafa S, O'Dea B, Oehler C, Piera-Jimenez J, Potthoff S, Qirjako G, Rapley T, Rosmalen J, Sacco Y, Samalin L, Skjoth MM, Tarp K, Titzler I, Van der Eycken E, van Genugten CR, Whitton A, Zanalda E, Smit JH, Riper H. Effectiveness of Self-guided Tailored Implementation Strategies in Integrating and Embedding Internet-Based Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Routine Mental Health Care: Results of a Multicenter Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Feb 3;25:e41532. doi: 10.2196/41532.
- Background: PubMed 26264453Padek M, Colditz G, Dobbins M, Koscielniak N, Proctor EK, Sales AE, Brownson RC. Developing educational competencies for dissemination and implementation research training programs: an exploratory analysis using card sorts. Implement Sci. 2015 Aug 12;10:114. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0304-3.
- Background: PubMed 24410955Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 10;9:7. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 42337627Hensen N, Smit RA, Barrero A, Breunese J, Burazeri G, Caini S, Fernandez E, Gorini G, Grams L, Mercader CG, Walters BH, Hinderaker HK, Janda M, Jimenez-Rueda A, Jaffery JI, Kahlhofer J, Francisca Kenter RM, Lodding P, Macaulay L, Marushko K, Ramiro-Pareta M, O'Donnell R, Porthe V, Pontes C, Piera-Jimenez J, Qirjako G, Rocliffe P, Semple S, Troelstra SA, van der Ploeg HP, Willemsen MC, Woods C, Ylli A, Vis C, Martinez C, Nassau FV; PIECES consortium. The PIECES multi-site comparative case study protocol: mixed methods implementation evaluation of adapting, implementing and tailoring primary cancer prevention programmes in diverse contexts. Implement Sci Commun. 2026 Jun 23. doi: 10.1186/s43058-026-01002-0. Online ahead of print.
- Project WebsiteLink provided by the sponsor.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Femke van Nassau, PhD study chair
Amsterdam UMC
11 sites in 9 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Primary Cancer Prevention Implementation Toolkit (PCP-IT) in people with Focus of Study: Tailored Implementation, run by Hidde van der Ploeg at 11 sites in 9 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: enrolling by invitation, as of the sponsor's last update on 9 Apr 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 11 sites in Germany, Albania, Australia, Ireland, Italy and 4 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Competencies in Implementation (time frame: Month 0, repeated every six months until month 24.). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06718322, which also lists 4 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 9 Apr 2025; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 6 Nov 2026.