Comparative Effectiveness of Patient-Driven versus Standardized Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management education and support can be effectively and efficiently delivered in primary care in the form of shared medical appointments (SMAs). Comparative effectiveness of SMA delivery features such as topic choice, multi-disciplinary care teams, and peer mentor involvement is not known. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of standardized and patient-driven models of diabetes SMAs on patient-level diabetes outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1060 adults with type 2 diabetes in 22 primary care practices. INTERVENTIONS: Practice personnel delivered the 6-session Targeted Training in Illness Management (TTIM) curriculum using either standardized (set content delivered by a health educator) or patient-driven SMAs (patient-selected topic order delivered by health educators, behavioral health providers [BHPs], and peer mentors). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included self-reported diabetes distress and diabetes self-care behaviors from baseline and follow-up surveys (assessed at 1st and final SMA session), and HbA1c, BMI, and blood pressure from electronic health records. Analyses used descriptive statistics, linear regression, and linear mixed models. KEY RESULTS: Both standardized and patient-driven SMAs effectively improved diabetes distress, self-care behaviors, BMI (- 0.29 on average), and HbA1c (- 0.45% (mmol/mol) on average, 8.3 to 7.8%). Controlling for covariates, there was a small, significant effect of condition on overall diabetes distress in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,841) = 4.3, p = .04), attributable to significant effects of condition on emotion and regimen distress subscales. There was a small, significant effect of condition on diastolic blood pressure in favor of standardized SMAs (F(1,5199) = 4.50, p = .03). There were no other differences between conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Both SMA models using the TTIM curriculum yielded significant improvement in diabetes distress, self-care, and HbA1c. Patient-driven diabetes SMAs involving BHPs and peer mentors and topic selection did not lead to better clinical or patient-reported outcomes than standardized diabetes SMAs facilitated by a health educator following a set topic order. NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT03590041.

Aligning the planning, development, and implementation of complex interventions to local contexts with an equity focus: application of the PRISM/RE-AIM Framework.

For the fields of implementation science and health equity, understanding and being responsive to local contexts is of utmost importance to better inform the development, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare and public health interventions to increase their uptake and sustainment. Contexts are multi-level and include political, historical, economic, and social factors that influence health, as well as organizational characteristics, reflecting the richness of members' views, resources, values, and needs. Poor alignment between solutions and those contextual characteristics could have an impact on inequities. The PRISM (Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model) is a context-based implementation science framework that incorporates RE-AIM outcomes (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) and offers guidance to researchers, practitioners, and their patient and community partners on how to conceptualize, assess, and address contextual domains with a focus on health equity. Drawing from systems thinking, participatory engagement, and health equity principles, this commentary expands on previous work to 1) offer a novel perspective on how to align an intervention's core functions and forms with the PRISM's contextual domains, and 2) foster an ongoing and iterative engagement process with diverse partners throughout the research and practice process using a co-creation approach. We recommend intervention-to-context alignment through iterative cycles. To that end, we present the RE-AIM Framework's 'outcomes cascade' to illustrate touch points of opportunity and gaps within and across each of the five RE-AIM outcomes to illustrate 'where things go wrong'. We present a case study to illustrate and offer recommendations for research and practice efforts to increase contextual responsiveness, and enhance alignment with context before, during, and after implementation efforts and to ensure equity is being addressed. We strive to make a conceptual contribution to advance the field of pragmatic research and implementation of evidence-based practices through the application of the contextually-based PRISM framework with a focus on health equity.

Implementation strategies preferred by primary care clinicians to facilitate cancer prevention and control activities.

Key clinical and community members need to be involved in the identification of feasible and impactful implementation strategies for translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. While a wide range of implementation strategies has been developed, there is little research on their applicability for cancer prevention and control (CPC) efforts in primary care. We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to identify implementation strategies they perceive as most feasible and impactful. The survey included both primary prevention behavior change counseling and cancer screening issues. Analyses contrasted ratings of feasibility and impact of nine implementation strategies, and among clinicians in different settings with a focus on comparisons between clinicians in rural vs. non-rural settings. We recruited a convenience sample of 326 respondents from a wide range of practice types from four practice-based research networks in 49 states and including 177 clinicians in rural settings. Ratings of impact were somewhat higher than those for feasibility. Few of the nine implementation strategies were high on both impact and feasibility. Only 'adapting to my practice' was rated higher than a 4 ("moderate") on both impact and feasibility. There were relatively few differences between rural and non-rural clinicians or associated with other clinician or setting characteristics. There is considerable variability in perceived impact and feasibility of implementation strategies for CPC activities among family medicine clinicians. It is important to assess both feasibility and impact of implementation strategies as well as their generalizability across settings. Our results suggest that optimal strategies to implement evidence-based CPC activities will likely need to be adapted for primary care settings. Future research is needed to replicate these findings and identify practical, implementation partner informed implementation strategies.

A Multi-Method Study of Patient Reach and Attendance in a Pragmatic Trial of Diabetes Shared Medical Appointments.

Shared medical appointments (SMAs) are an evidence-based approach to diabetes care in primary care settings, yet practices can struggle to ensure participation, especially among racial and ethnic minority and low-income patients. We conducted a multimethod evaluation of reach and attendance in the Invested in Diabetes study of the comparative effectiveness of two SMA delivery models (standardized and patient-driven) in two practice settings (federally qualified health centers [FQHCs] and clinics serving more commercially insured patients). Through this study, 22 practices reached 6.2% of patients with diabetes through SMAs over 3 years, with good attendance for both practice types and both SMA delivery models. FQHCs were especially successful at enrolling underserved populations and improved attendance with virtual SMAs.

Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability to Promote Equitable Impacts on Health.

Designing for dissemination and sustainability (D4DS) refers to principles and methods for enhancing the fit between a health program, policy, or practice and the context in which it is intended to be adopted. In this article we first summarize the historical context of D4DS and justify the need to shift traditional health research and dissemination practices. We present a diverse literature according to a D4DS organizing schema and describe a variety of dissemination products, design processes and outcomes, and approaches to messaging, packaging, and distribution. D4DS design processes include stakeholder engagement, participatory codesign, and context and situation analysis, and leverage methods and frameworks from dissemination and implementation science, marketing and business, communications and visualarts, and systems science. Finally, we present eight recommendations to adopt a D4DS paradigm, reflecting shifts in ways of thinking, skills and approaches, and infrastructure and systems for training and evaluation.

Hypertension in Guatemala's Public Primary Care System: A Needs Assessment Using the Health System Building Blocks Framework.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled hypertension represents a substantial and growing burden in Guatemala and other low and middle-income countries. As a part of the formative phase of an implementation research study, we conducted a needs assessment to define short- and long-term needs and opportunities for hypertension services within the public health system. METHODS: We conducted a multi-method, multi-level assessment of needs related to hypertension within Guatemala's public system using the World Health Organization's health system building blocks framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders at national (n = 17), departmental (n = 7), district (n = 25), and community (n = 30) levels and focus groups with patients (3) and frontline auxiliary nurses (3). We visited and captured data about infrastructure, accessibility, human resources, reporting, medications and supplies at 124 health posts and 53 health centers in five departments of Guatemala. We conducted a thematic analysis of transcribed interviews and focus group discussions supported by matrix analysis. We summarized quantitative data observed during visits to health posts and centers. RESULTS: Major challenges for hypertension service delivery included: gaps in infrastructure, insufficient staffing and high turnover, limited training, inconsistent supply of medications, lack of reporting, low prioritization of hypertension, and a low level of funding in the public health system overall. Key opportunities included: prior experience caring for patients with chronic conditions, eagerness from providers to learn, and interest from patients to be involved in managing their health. The 5 departments differ in population served per health facility, accessibility, and staffing. All but 7 health posts had basic infrastructure in place. Enalapril was available in 74% of health posts whereas hydrochlorothiazide was available in only 1 of the 124 health posts. With the exception of one department, over 90% of health posts had a blood pressure monitor. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-level multi-method needs assessment using the building blocks framework highlights contextual factors in Guatemala's public health system that have been important in informing the implementation of a hypertension control trial. Long-term needs that are not addressed within the scope of this study will be important to address to enable sustained implementation and scale-up of the hypertension control approach.

An Adaptive, Contextual, Technology-Aided Support (ACTS) System for Chronic Illness Self-Management.

Policy Points Fundamental changes are needed in how complex chronic illness conditions are conceptualized and managed. Health management plans for chronic illness need to be integrated, adaptive, contextual, technology aided, patient driven, and designed to address the multilevel social environment of patients' lives. Such primary care-based health management plans are feasible today but will be even more effective and sustainable if supported by systems thinking, technological advances, and policies that create and reinforce home, work, and health care collaborations. CONTEXT: The current health care system is failing patients with chronic illness, especially those with complex comorbid conditions and social determinants of health challenges. The current system combined with unsustainable health care costs, lack of support for primary care in the United States, and aging demographics create a frightening probable future. METHODS: Recent developments, including integrated behavioral health, community resources to address social determinants, population health infrastructure, patient-centered digital-health self-management support, and complexity science have the potential to help address these alarming trends. This article describes, first, the opportunity to integrate these trends and, second, a proposal for an integrated, patient-directed, adaptive, contextual, and technology-aided support (ACTS) system, based on a patient's life context and home/primary care/work-setting "support triangle." FINDINGS: None of these encouraging trends is a panacea, and although most have been described previously, they have not been integrated. Here we discuss an example of integration using these components and how our proposed model (termed My Own Health Report) can be applied, along with its strengths, limitations, implications, and opportunities for practice, policy, and research. CONCLUSIONS: This ACTS system builds on and extends the current chronic illness management approaches. It is feasible today and can produce even more dramatic improvements in the future.

Study protocol: improving the transition of care from a non-network hospital back to the patient's medical home.

BACKGROUND: The process of transitioning Veterans to primary care following a non-Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitalization can be challenging. Poor transitions result in medical complications and increased hospital readmissions. The goal of this transition of care quality improvement (QI) project is to identify gaps in the current transition process and implement an intervention that bridges the gap and improves the current transition of care process within the Eastern Colorado Health Care System (ECHCS). METHODS: We will employ qualitative methods to understand the current transition of care process back to VA primary care for Veterans who received care in a non-VA hospital in ECHCS. We will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with Veterans hospitalized in 2015 in non-VA hospitals as well as both VA and non-VA providers, staff, and administrators involved in the current care transition process. Participants will be recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Qualitative data analysis will be guided by conventional content analysis and Lean Six Sigma process improvement tools. We will use VA claim data to identify the top ten non-VA hospitals serving rural and urban Veterans by volume and Veterans that received inpatient services at non-VA hospitals. Informed by both qualitative and quantitative data, we will then develop a transitions care coordinator led intervention to improve the transitions process. We will test the transition of care coordinator intervention using repeated improvement cycles incorporating salient factors in value stream mapping that are important for an efficient and effective transition process. Furthermore, we will complete a value stream map of the transition process at two other VA Medical Centers and test whether an implementation strategy of audit and feedback (the value stream map of the current transition process with the Transition of Care Dashboard) versus audit and feedback with Transition Nurse facilitation of the process using the Resource Guide and Transition of Care Dashboard improves the transition process, continuity of care, patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. DISCUSSION: Our current transition of care process has shortcomings. An intervention utilizing a transition care coordinator has the potential to improve this process. Transitioning Veterans to primary care following a non-VA hospitalization is a crucial step for improving care coordination for Veterans.

Advance Care Planning Meets Group Medical Visits: The Feasibility of Promoting Conversations.

PURPOSE: Primary care needs new models to facilitate advance care planning conversations. These conversations focus on preferences regarding serious illness and may involve patients, decision makers, and health care providers. We describe the feasibility of the first primary care-based group visit model focused on advance care planning. METHODS: We conducted a pilot demonstration of an advance care planning group visit in a geriatrics clinic. Patients were aged at least 65 years. Groups of patients met in 2 sessions of 2 hours each facilitated by a geriatrician and a social worker. Activities included considering personal values, discussing advance care planning, choosing surrogate decision-makers, and completing advance directives. We used the RE-AIM framework to evaluate the project. RESULTS: Ten of 11 clinicians referred patients for participation. Of 80 patients approached, 32 participated in 5 group visit cohorts (a 40% participation rate) and 27 participated in both sessions (an 84% retention rate). Mean age was 79 years; 59% of participants were female and 72% white. Most evaluated the group visit as better than usual clinic visits for discussing advance care planning. Patients reported increases in detailed advance care planning conversations after participating (19% to 41%, P = .02). Qualitative analysis found that older adults were willing to share personal values and challenges related to advance care planning and that they initiated discussions about a broad range of relevant topics. CONCLUSION: A group visit to facilitate discussions about advance care planning and increase patient engagement is feasible. This model warrants further evaluation for effectiveness in improving advance care planning outcomes for patients, clinicians, and the system.

Metrics for assessing improvements in primary health care.

Metrics focus attention on what is important. Balanced metrics of primary health care inform purpose and aspiration as well as performance. Purpose in primary health care is about improving the health of people and populations in their community contexts. It is informed by metrics that include long-term, meaning- and relationship-focused perspectives. Aspirational uses of metrics inspire evolving insights and iterative improvement, using a collaborative, developmental perspective. Performance metrics assess the complex interactions among primary care tenets of accessibility, a whole-person focus, integration and coordination of care, and ongoing relationships with individuals, families, and communities; primary health care principles of inclusion and equity, a focus on people's needs, multilevel integration of health, collaborative policy dialogue, and stakeholder participation; basic and goal-directed health care, prioritization, development, and multilevel health outcomes. Environments that support reflection, development, and collaborative action are necessary for metrics to advance health and minimize unintended consequences.

Implementation science for cancer control: One center's experience addressing context, adaptation, equity, and sustainment.

Implementation science (IS) has great potential to enhance the frequency, speed, and quality of the translation of evidence-based programs, policies, products, and guidelines into practice. Progress has been made, but with some notable exceptions, this promise has not been achieved for cancer prevention and control. We discuss five interrelated but conceptually distinct, crosscutting issues important to accelerate IS for cancer prevention and control and how our Colorado Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control (COISC3) addressed these issues. These needs and opportunities include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative adaptations; evaluating innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We summarize conceptual issues; evaluation needs and capacity building activities and then provide examples of how our IS center addressed these five needs for cancer prevention and control. We discuss changes made to address priorities of (i) guiding adaptations of implementation strategies to address changing context and (ii) working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners rather than the research team. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice in IS to enhance cancer prevention and control as well as translational behavioral medicine more generally.

Implementation science (IS) has made advances in translating research to practice but has not achieved the initial promise for cancer prevention and control (CPC). We discuss five crosscutting issues to enhance CPC that implementation and behavioral science are well positioned to address. These include more fully addressing changing, multi-level context; guiding rapid, iterative program adaptations; innovative approaches to engagement and health equity; greater attention to costs and economic issues; and sustainability. We then detail changes made in our research approach from studying specific interventions and strategies from the research literature to working on issues identified and prioritized by our primary care partners. In summary, progress in achieving lasting equitable improvements in health and healthcare will be greatly aided by use of flexible, accessible conceptual models, and approaches that help guide collaborators to design and adapt programs. We conclude with discussion of lessons learned, limitations, and directions for future research and practice of translational behavioral medicine.

Designing for dissemination among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA.

Introduction: The slow adoption of evidence-based interventions reflects gaps in effective dissemination of research evidence. Existing studies examining designing for dissemination (D4D), a process that ensures interventions and implementation strategies consider adopters' contexts, have focused primarily on researchers, with limited perspectives of practitioners. To address these gaps, this study examined D4D practice among public health and clinical practitioners in the USA. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study among public health and primary care practitioners in April to June 2022 (analyzed in July 2022 to December 2022). Both groups were recruited through national-level rosters. The survey was informed by previous D4D studies and pretested using cognitive interviewing. Results: Among 577 respondents, 45% were public health and 55% primary care practitioners, with an overall survey response rate of 5.5%. The most commonly ranked sources of research evidence were email announcements for public health practitioners (43.7%) and reading academic journals for clinical practitioners (37.9%). Practitioners used research findings to promote health equity (67%) and evaluate programs/services (66%). A higher proportion of clinical compared to public health practitioners strongly agreed/agreed that within their work setting they had adequate financial resources (36% vs. 23%, p < 0.001) and adequate staffing (36% vs. 24%, p = 0.001) to implement research findings. Only 20% of all practitioners reported having a designated individual or team responsible for finding and disseminating research evidence. Conclusions: Addressing both individual and modifiable barriers, including organizational capacity to access and use research evidence, may better align the efforts of researchers with priorities and resources of practitioners.

Lung cancer screening in rural primary care practices in Colorado: time for a more team-based approach?

BACKGROUND: Despite lung cancer being a leading cause of death in the United States and lung cancer screening (LCS) being a recommended service, many patients eligible for screening do not receive it. Research is needed to understand the challenges with implementing LCS in different settings. This study investigated multiple practice members and patient perspectives impacting rural primary care practices related to LCS uptake by eligible patients. METHODS: This qualitative study involved primary care practice members in multiple roles (clinicians n = 9, clinical staff n = 12 and administrators n = 5) and their patients (n = 19) from 9 practices including federally qualified and rural health centers (n = 3), health system owned (n = 4) and private practices (n = 2). Interviews were conducted regarding the importance of and ability to complete the steps that may result in a patient receiving LCS. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis with immersion crystallization then organized using the RE-AIM implementation science framework to illuminate and organize implementation issues. RESULTS: Although all groups endorsed the importance of LCS, all also struggled with implementation challenges. Since assessing smoking history is part of the process to identify eligibility for LCS, we asked about these processes. We found that smoking assessment and assistance (including referral to services) were routine in the practices, but other steps in the LCS portion of determining eligibility and offering LCS were not. Lack of knowledge about screening and coverage, patient stigma, and resistance and practical considerations such as distance to LCS testing facilities complicated completion of LCS compared to screening for other types of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Limited uptake of LCS results from a range of multiple interacting factors that cumulatively affect consistency and quality of implementation at the practice level. Future research should consider team-based approaches to conduct of LCS eligibility and shared decision making.

Sustained Effect of Clinical Decision Support for Heart Failure: A Natural Experiment Using Implementation Science.

OBJECTIVES: In a randomized controlled trial, we found that applying implementation science (IS) methods and best practices in clinical decision support (CDS) design to create a locally customized, "enhanced" CDS significantly improved evidence-based prescribing of ß blockers (BB) for heart failure compared with an unmodified commercially available CDS. At trial conclusion, the enhanced CDS was expanded to all sites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world sustained effect of the enhanced CDS compared with the commercial CDS. METHODS: In this natural experiment of 28 primary care clinics, we compared clinics exposed to the commercial CDS (preperiod) to clinics exposed to the enhanced CDS (both periods). The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of alerts resulting in a BB prescription. Secondary outcomes included patient reach and clinician adoption (dismissals). RESULTS: There were 367 alerts for 183 unique patients and 171 unique clinicians (pre: March 2019-August 2019; post: October 2019-March 2020). The enhanced CDS increased prescribing by 26.1% compared with the commercial (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.0-35.1%), which is consistent with the 24% increase in the previous study. The odds of adopting the enhanced CDS was 81% compared with 29% with the commercial (odds ratio: 4.17, 95% CI: 1.96-8.85). The enhanced CDS adoption and effectiveness rates were 62 and 14% in the preperiod and 92 and 10% in the postperiod. CONCLUSION: Applying IS methods with CDS best practices was associated with improved and sustained clinician adoption and effectiveness compared with a commercially available CDS tool.

Values and Meaning in Rural Primary Care Practices: Implications for Interventions Within Context.

OBJECTIVES: It is important to understand the unique perspectives and values that motivate patients and clinicians in rural primary care settings to participate in clinical care activities. Our objective was to explore perspectives, preferences, and values related to primary care that could influence implementation of evidence-based programs. METHODS: Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews and using immersion/crystallization and thematic analysis. Participants were primary care practice members (clinicians, clinical staff, and administrators) and their patients in rural Colorado. RESULTS: Twenty-six practice members and 23 patients across 9 practices participated. There were 4 emergent themes that were consistent across practice members and some patients. Patient perspectives are located in parenthesis. They included: (1) Focus on quality patient care, patient satisfaction, and continuity of care (patients appreciated quality and compassionate care), (2) Importance of prevention and wellness (patients appreciated help with preventing health problems), (3) Clinician willingness and ability to meet patient preferences for care (patients described comfort with local care), and (4) Passion for serving underserved, uninsured, or vulnerable populations (patients described their vulnerabilities). There were differences in how the perspectives were operationalized by practice member role, illustrating the importance of different ways of addressing these values. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation requires consideration of context, and much of context is understanding what is important to those involved in the primary care experience. This study sheds light on salient values of rural primary care practice members and their patients, which may inform interventions designed with and for this setting.

Advancing rapid adaptation for urgent public health crises: Using implementation science to facilitate effective and efficient responses.

Responding rapidly to emerging public health crises is vital to reducing their escalation, spread, and impact on population health. These responses, however, are challenging and disparate processes for researchers and practitioners. Researchers often develop new interventions that take significant time and resources, with little exportability. In contrast, community-serving systems are often poorly equipped to properly adopt new interventions or adapt existing ones in a data-driven way during crises' onset and escalation. This results in significant delays in deploying evidence-based interventions (EBIs) with notable public health consequences. This prolonged timeline for EBI development and implementation results in significant morbidity and mortality that is costly and preventable. As public health emergencies have demonstrated (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), the negative consequences often exacerbate existing health disparities. Implementation science has the potential to bridge the extant gap between research and practice, and enhance equity in rapid public health responses, but is underutilized. For the field to have a greater "real-world" impact, it needs to be more rapid, iterative, participatory, and work within the timeframes of community-serving systems. This paper focuses on rapid adaptation as a developing implementation science area to facilitate system responses during public health crises. We highlight frameworks to guide rapid adaptation for optimizing existing EBIs when responding to urgent public health issues. We also explore the economic implications of rapid adaptation. Resource limitations are frequently a central reason for implementation failure; thus, we consider the economic impacts of rapid adaptation. Finally, we provide examples and propose directions for future research and application.

Using a longitudinal multi-method approach to document, assess, and understand adaptations in the Veterans Health Administration Advanced Care Coordination program.

Background: Understanding adaptations supports iterative refinement of the implementation process and informs scale out of programs. Systematic documentation of adaptations across the life course of programs is not routinely done, and efficient capture of adaptations in real world studies is not well understood. Methods: We used a multi-method longitudinal approach to systematically document adaptations during pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainment for the Veteran Health Administration (VA) Advanced Care Coordination program. This approach included documenting adaptations through a real-time tracking instrument, process maps, Implementation and Evaluation (I&E) team meeting minutes, and adaptation interviews. Data collection was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) enhanced framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions (FRAME) model. Adaptations were evaluated across 9 categories, and analytic team consensus and member-checking were used to validate the results. Results: A total of 144 individual adaptations were identified across two implementation sites and the four data sources; analytic team consensus and member-checking processes resulted in 50 unique adaptations. Most adaptations took place during the early implementation and mid-implementation phases and were: 1) planned; 2) made to address changes in program delivery; 3) made to extend a component; 4) related to the core component of the intervention concerning notification of the community emergency department visit; 5) initiated by the entire or most of the I&E team; 6) made on the basis of: pragmatic/practical considerations; 7) made with an intent to improve implementation domain (to make the intervention delivered more consistently; to better fit the local practice, patient flow or Electronic Health Record (EHR) and/or for practical reasons); 8) a result of internal influences; 9) perceived to impact the RE-AIM implementation dimension (consistent delivery of quality care or costs). I&E team meeting minutes and process maps captured the highest numbers of unique adaptations (n = 19 and n = 13, respectively). Conclusion: Our longitudinal, multi-method approach provided a feasible way to collect adaptations data through engagement of multiple I&E team members, allowing and a broader understanding of adaptations that took place. Recommendations for future research include pragmatic assessment of the impact of adaptations and meaningful data collection without overburdening the implementing teams and front-line staff.

Use of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to guide iterative adaptations: Applications, lessons learned, and future directions.

Introduction: Implementation science frameworks have been used widely for planning and evaluation, but seldom to guide adaptations during program implementation. There is great potential for these frameworks to be used to inform conceptual and data-driven decisions about adaptations. Methods: We summarize recent applications using Iterative RE-AIM to capture and guide adaptations. Iterative RE-AIM can be repeated at multiple time points customized to each project and involves the following activities: identification of key implementation partners; rating importance of and progress on each RE-AIM dimension (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance); use of summary data on ratings to identify one or two RE-AIM dimensions for adaptations and implementation strategies; and evaluation of progress and impact of adaptations. We summarize recent and ongoing Iterative RE-AIM applications across multiple care coordination and pain management projects within the Veterans Health Administration, a hypertension control trial in Guatemala, a hospital-based lung ultrasound implementation pilot, and a colorectal cancer screening program in underserved communities. Results: Iterative RE-AIM appears feasible, helpful, and broadly applicable across diverse health care issues, interventions, contexts, and populations. In general, the RE-AIM dimension showing the largest gap between importance and progress has been Reach. The dimensions most frequently selected for improvement have been Reach and Implementation. We discuss commonalities, differences and lessons learned across these various applications of Iterative RE-AIM. Challenges include having objective real time data on which to make decisions, having key implementation staff available for all assessments, and rapidly scoring and providing actionable feedback. We discuss print and online resources and materials to support Iterative RE-AIM. Conclusions: The use of Iterative RE-AIM to guide and support understanding of adaptations has proven feasible across diverse projects and in multiple case studies, but there are still questions about its strengths, limitations, essential components, efficiency, comparative effectiveness, and delivery details. Future directions include investigating the optimal frequency and timing for iterative applications; adding contextual assessments; developing more continuous and rapid data on which to make adaptation decisions; identifying opportunities to enhance health equity; and determining the level of facilitation that is most cost-effective.

A RE-AIM Framework Analysis of DNA-Based Population Screening: Using Implementation Science to Translate Research Into Practice in a Healthcare System.

Introduction: DNA-based population screening has been proposed as a public health solution to identify individuals at risk for serious health conditions who otherwise may not present for medical care. The clinical utility and public health impact of DNA-based population screening is a subject of active investigation. Geisinger, an integrated healthcare delivery system, was one of the first healthcare systems to implement DNA screening programs (MyCode Community Health Initiative (MyCode) and clinical DNA screening pilot) that leverage exome data to identify individuals at risk for developing conditions with potential clinical actionability. Here, we demonstrate the use of an implementation science framework, RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance), to conduct a post-hoc evaluation and report outcomes from these two programs to inform the potential impact of DNA-based population screening. Methods: Reach and Effectiveness outcomes were determined from the MyCode research program, while Adoption and Implementation outcomes were measured using the clinical DNA screening pilot. Reach was defined as the number of patients who were offered and consented to participate in MyCode. Effectiveness of DNA screening was measured by reviewing MyCode program publications and synthesizing findings from themes. Adoption was measured by the total number of DNA screening tests ordered by clinicians at the clinical pilot sites. Implementation was assessed by interviewing a subset of clinical pilot clinicians about the deployment of and recommended adaptations to the pilot that could inform future program dissemination. Results: Reach: As of August 2020, 68% (215,078/316,612) of individuals approached to participate in the MyCode program consented. Effectiveness: Published evidence reported from MyCode demonstrates that DNA screening identifies at-risk individuals more comprehensively than clinical ascertainment based on phenotypes or personal/family history. Adoption: From July 2018 to June 2021, a total of 1,026 clinical DNA screening tests were ordered by 60 clinicians across the three pilot clinic sites. Implementation: Interviews with 14 clinicians practicing at the pilot clinic sites revealed motivation to provide patients with DNA screening results and yielded future implementation strategies. Conclusion: The RE-AIM framework offers a pragmatic solution to organize, analyze, and report outcomes across differently resourced and designed precision health programs that include genomic sequencing and return of clinically actionable genomic information.