The Development of Social Determinants of Health Outcome Measures: The Role of Multisector Partnerships and Community Validation.

PURPOSE: To develop a set of social determinants of health (SDOH) measurements. PROBLEM: Despite burgeoning interest in addressing both SDOH and health-related social needs, the evidence on what works is limited due in part to the lack of standardized measures for evaluation. METHODS: In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) identified 5 SDOH domains related to chronic disease for future programmatic work. These included built environment, community connections to clinical care, tobacco-free policies, social connectedness, and food and nutrition security. Subsequently, NCCDPHP launched an effort to develop a set of SDOH measures for evaluating funded programs in these domains. The approach involved a literature scan and a rating process based on 5 criteria relevant to NCCDPHP's SDOH priorities. A complementary community review by 13 multisector community partnerships (MCPs) applied a real-world public health practice lens to measure development. MCPs' ratings were analyzed to create summary scores for each measure, and open-ended feedback was synthesized using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: The internal workgroup identified 59 measures from the initial 200 measures. Feedback from the MCPs identified issues of relevancy and burden of measures. Their high scores narrowed the 59 measures to 22 covering all 5 domains. In response, CDC is honing the original measures review criteria to include community perspectives. CONCLUSION: Public health measures development is often an academic pursuit. Engaging MCPs lends real-world credibility to the development of common SDOH measures.

Integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) into a Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) Approach to Conduct Mixed-Method Evaluations of Diabetes Prevention and Management Programs Reaching Underresourced Populations and Communities.

Diabetes is a significant population health threat. Evidence-based interventions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Diabetes Prevention Program and diabetes self-management education and support programs, can help prevent, delay, or manage the disease. However, participation is suboptimal, especially among populations who are at an increased risk of developing diabetes. Evaluations of programs reaching populations who are medically underserved or people with lower incomes can help elucidate how best to tailor evidence-based interventions, but it is also important for evaluations to account for cultural and contextual factors. Culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) is a framework for centering an evaluation in the culture of the programs being evaluated. We integrated CRE with implementation and outcome constructs from the Adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to ensure that the evaluation produced useful evidence for putting evidence-based diabetes interventions to use in real-world settings, reaching populations who are at an increased risk of developing diabetes. The paper provides an overview of how we integrated CRE and CFIR approaches to conduct mixed-methods evaluations of evidence-based diabetes interventions.

Community selected strategies to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths in the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-term SM) communities study.

The Helping End Addictions Long Term (HEALing) Communities Study (HCS) seeks to significantly reduce overdose deaths in 67 highly impacted communities in Kentucky (KY), Massachusetts (MA), New York (NY), and Ohio (OH) by implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) to reduce overdose deaths. The Opioid-overdose Reduction Continuum of Care Approach (ORCCA) organizes EBP strategies under three menus: Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution (OEND), Medication Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD), and Safer Prescribing and Dispensing Practices (SPDP). The ORCCA sets requirements for strategy selection but allows flexibility to address community needs. This paper describes and compiles strategy selection and examines two hypotheses: 1) OEND selections will differ significantly between communities with higher versus lower opioid-involved overdose deaths; 2) MOUD selections will differ significantly between urban versus rural settings. METHODS: Wave 1 communities (n = 33) provided data on EBP strategy selections. Selections were recorded as a combination of EBP menu, sector (behavioral health, criminal justice, and healthcare), and venue (e.g., jail, drug court, etc.); target medication(s) were recorded for MOUD strategies. Strategy counts and proportions were calculated overall and by site (KY, MA, NY, OH), setting (rural/urban), and opioid-involved overdose deaths (high/low). RESULTS: Strategy selection exceeded ORCCA requirements across all 33 communities, with OEND strategies accounting for more (40.8%) than MOUD (35.1%), or SPDP (24.1%) strategies. Site-adjusted differences were not significant for either hypothesis related to OEND or MOUD strategy selection. CONCLUSIONS: HCS communities selected strategies from the ORCCA menu well beyond minimum requirements using a flexible approach to address unique needs.

Protocol for community-driven selection of strategies to implement evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdoses in the HEALing Communities Study: a trial to evaluate a community-engaged intervention in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid-involved overdose deaths continue to surge in many communities, despite numerous evidence-based practices (EBPs) that exist to prevent them. The HEALing Communities Study (HCS) was launched to develop and test an intervention (ie, Communities That HEAL (CTH)) that supports communities in expanding uptake of EBPs to reduce opioid-involved overdose deaths. This paper describes a protocol for a process foundational to the CTH intervention through which community coalitions select strategies to implement EBPs locally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CTH is being implemented in 67 communities (randomised to receive the intervention) in four states in partnership with coalitions (one per community). Coalitions must select at least five strategies, including one to implement each of the following EBPs: (a) overdose education and naloxone distribution; expanded (b) access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), (c) linkage to MOUD, (d) retention in MOUD and (e) safer opioid prescribing/dispensing. Facilitated by decision aid tools, the community action planning process includes (1) data-driven goal setting, (2) discussion and prioritisation of EBP strategies, (3) selection of EBP strategies and (4) identification of next steps. Following review of epidemiologic data and information on existing local services, coalitions set goals and discuss, score and/or rank EBP strategies based on feasibility, appropriateness within the community context and potential impact on reducing opioid-involved overdose deaths with a focus on three key sectors (healthcare, behavioural health and criminal justice) and high-risk/vulnerable populations. Coalitions then select EBP strategies through consensus or majority vote and, subsequently, suggest or choose agencies with which to partner for implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HCS protocol was approved by a central Institutional Review Board (Advarra). Results of the action planning process will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and in meetings with community stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04111939.