Perspectives of substance use disorder counselors on the benefits and drawbacks of medications for opioid use disorder.

Background: Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are among the best tools we have to combat the opioid epidemic. Yet, use of MOUD among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) remains low. Interventions to increase MOUD access in the United States have largely focused on improving organizational capacity and addressing funding barriers, yet stigma toward MOUD may inhibit uptake even where MOUD is readily available. Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment counselors likely have considerable influence on a client's choice to initiate and adhere to MOUD, but beliefs that counselors convey about MOUD in interaction with clients are understudied. The current study explores what advantages and disadvantages that SUD treatment counselors communicate about buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Methods: From June to December 2021, we surveyed counselors from publicly-funded SUD treatment agencies under a municipality-wide mandate to offer MOUD to all clients with OUD. Counselors were asked to describe, in a free-response format, the most important advantages and disadvantages to communicate to their clients about taking buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. Counselor responses were coded for one or more advantage and disadvantage. Results: A total of 271 SUD counselors from 29 agencies completed the survey, generating 1,995 advantages and disadvantages across three types of MOUD. The most frequently reported advantage across all three types of MOUD was their ability to reduce cravings and illicit drug use. The most frequently reported disadvantage related to the potential for some types of MOUD to develop long-term medication dependence. Conclusions: As the availability and variety of MOUD treatment options continue to expand, it is important that SUD counselors are equipped with evidence-based recommendations for OUD care. We identified misalignments with the MOUD-prescribing evidence base and stigmatizing language toward MOUD within counselors' responses, highlighting the potential to refine training materials for MOUD and mitigate stigmatizing beliefs.

A mixed-methods evaluation of organization and individual factors influencing provider intentions to use caregiver coaching in community-based early intervention.

BACKGROUND: Most psycho-social interventions contain multiple components. Practitioners often vary in their implementation of different intervention components. Caregiver coaching is a multicomponent intervention for young autistic children that is highly effective but poorly implemented in community-based early intervention (EI). Previous research has shown that EI providers' intentions, and the determinants of their intentions, to implement caregiver coaching vary across components. Organizational culture and climate likely influence these psychological determinants of intention by affecting beliefs that underlie attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy to implement an intervention. Research in this area is limited, which limits the development of theoretically driven, multilevel implementation strategies to support multi-component interventions. This mixed methods study evaluated the relationships among organizational leadership, culture and climate, attitudes, norms, self-efficacy, and EI providers' intentions to implement the components of caregiver coaching. METHODS: We surveyed 264 EI providers from 37 agencies regarding their intentions and determinants of intentions to use caregiver coaching. We also asked questions about the organizational culture, climate, and leadership in their agencies related to caregiver coaching. We used multilevel structural equation models to estimate associations among intentions, psychological determinants of intentions (attitudes, descriptive norms, injunctive norms, and self-efficacy), and organizational factors (implementation climate and leadership). We conducted qualitative interviews with 36 providers, stratified by strength of intentions to use coaching. We used mixed-methods analysis to gain an in-depth understanding of the organization and individual-level factors. RESULTS: The associations among intentions, psychological determinants of intentions, and organizational factors varied across core components of caregiver coaching. Qualitative interviews elucidated how providers describe the importance of each component. For example, providers' attitudes toward coaching caregivers and their perceptions of caregivers' expectations for service were particularly salient themes related to their use of caregiver coaching. CONCLUSION: Results highlight the importance of multi-level strategies that strategically target individual intervention components as well as organization-level and individual-level constructs. This approach holds promise for improving the implementation of complex, multicomponent, psychosocial interventions in community-based service systems.

Operationalizing Street Harassment Using Survey Instruments: A Systematic Review of Measuring Harassment in Public Spaces Using Surveys.

Quantitative research has an omitted variable problem when it comes to measuring and modeling non-criminal threats in the urban environment. This systematic review identified questionnaires and surveys used to measure incidences of street harassment/harassment in public, to discuss how they operationalize street harassment/harassment in public, and to report the characteristics of those with the best evidence of reliability and validity. We searched five databases and included peer-reviewed articles published in English from 1994 to 2022 that measured street harassment using a survey instrument. Our search resulted in 54 included studies. Of these studies, 16 primarily focused on understanding street harassment. To design effective prevention strategies in response to street harassment, research must first effectively measure the prevalence of street harassment and the contexts in which street harassment occurs. Due to the inconsistencies in definition, our review identified prevalence rates were inconsistent. Incidents of street harassment provide a promising avenue for future research, although scholars must first seek to appropriately operationalize this concept in survey research. We provide suggestions for future research that seeks to use surveys to understand harassment in public places.

Mobile service delivery in response to the opioid epidemic in Philadelphia.

BACKGROUND: The harms of opioid use disorder (OUD) and HIV infection disproportionately impact marginalized populations, especially people experiencing homelessness and people who inject drugs (PWID). Mobile OUD service delivery models are emerging to increase access and reduce barriers to OUD care. While there is growing interest in these models, there is limited research about the services they provide, how they operate, and what barriers they face. We characterize the capacity, barriers, and sustainment of mobile OUD care services in a large city with a high incidence of OUD and HIV. METHODS: From May to August 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews with leadership from all seven mobile OUD care units (MOCU) providing a medication for OUD or other substance use disorder services in Philadelphia. We surveyed leaders about their unit's services, staffing, operating location, funding sources, and linkages to care. Leaders were asked to describe their clinical approach, treatment process, and the barriers and facilitators to their operations. Interview recordings were coded using rapid qualitative analysis. RESULTS: MOCUs are run by small, multidisciplinary teams, typically composed of a clinician, one or two case managers, and a peer recovery specialist or outreach worker. MOCUs provide a range of services, including medications for OUD, wound care, medical services, case management, and screening for infectious diseases. No units provide methadone, but all units provide naloxone, six write prescriptions for buprenorphine, and one unit dispenses buprenorphine. The most frequently reported barriers include practical challenges of working on a MOCU (e.g. lack of space, safety), lack of community support, and patients with substantial medical and psychosocial needs. Interviewees reported concerns about funding and specifically as it relates to providing their staff with adequate pay. The most frequently reported facilitators include positive relationships with the community, collaboration with other entities (e.g. local nonprofits, the police department, universities), and having non-clinical staff (e.g. outreach workers, peer recovery specialists) on the unit. CONCLUSIONS: MOCUs provide life-saving services and engage marginalized individuals with OUD. These findings highlight the challenges and complexities of caring for PWID and demonstrate a need to strengthen collaborations between MOCU providers and the treatment system. Policymakers should consider programmatic funding for permanent mobile OUD care services.

Where do psychologists turn to inform clinical decisions? Audience segmentation to guide dissemination strategies.

Background: Audience segmentation is an analysis technique that can identify meaningful subgroups within a population to inform the tailoring of dissemination strategies. We have conducted an empirical clustering audience segmentation study of licensed psychologists using survey data about the sources of knowledge they report most often consulting to guide their clinical decision-making. We identify meaningful subgroups within the population and inform the tailoring of dissemination strategies for evidence-based practice (EBP) materials. Method: Data come from a 2018-2019 web-based survey of licensed psychologists who were members of the American Psychological Association (APA; N = 518, response rate = 29.8%). Ten dichotomous variables assessed sources that psychologists regularly consult to inform clinical decision-making (e.g., colleagues, academic literature, and practice guidelines). We used latent class analysis to identify segments of psychologists who turn to similar sources and named each segment based on the segment's most salient characteristics. Results: Four audience segments were identified: the No-guidelines (45% of psychologists), Research-driven (16%), Thirsty-for-knowledge (9%), and No-reviews (30%). The four segments differed not only in their preferred sources of knowledge, but also in the types of evidence-based posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments they provide, their awareness and usage intention of the APA PTSD clinical practice guideline, and attitudes toward clinical practice guidelines. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that licensed psychologists are heterogeneous in terms of their knowledge-seeking behaviors and preferences for knowledge sources. The distinctive characteristics of these segments could guide the tailoring of dissemination materials and strategies to subsequently enhance the implementation of EBP among psychologists.

Audience segmentation is a dissemination strategy that categorizes a group of intended users or audience into meaningful subgroups based on their beliefs, behaviors, and/or other characteristics. Like many other scientific or medical fields, clinical psychology also struggles to use clinically tested psychological treatments (or EBPs) in everyday practice due to practical challenges. To help address such barriers, professional organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA) publish clinical practice guidelines that practitioners can use to learn more about EBPs. However, even these clinical practice guidelines are not often used, so this study employed the audience segmentation analysis to better understand psychologists' diverse attitudes, behaviors, and preferences regarding clinical practice guidelines and other clinical information sources. Our study found four distinct subgroups within approximately 600 APA-registered psychologists based on their preferred source of knowledge: the no-guidelines (45% of psychologists), research-driven (16%), thirsty-for-knowledge (9%), and no-reviews (30%). Each subgroup also varied in the types of evidence-based treatments they provide, as well as their awareness, willingness to use, and attitudes toward clinical practice guidelines. This result shows that licensed psychologists are not a uniform group and that dissemination strategies should be adjusted to each subgroup's characteristics to maximize the effort to increase the use of EBPs among psychologists.

Implementing a resilience coach program to support first year housestaff during the COVID-19 pandemic: early pilot results and comparison with non-housestaff sessions.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched the Penn Medicine Coping First Aid program to provide psychosocial supports to our health system community. Our approach leveraged lay health worker volunteers trained in principles of Psychological First Aid to deliver coaching services through a centralized virtual platform. METHODS: We emailed all (n = 408) first year housestaff (i.e., residents and fellows) with an invitation to schedule a session with a resilience coach. We compared the mental health concerns, symptoms, and Psychological First Aid techniques recorded in (n = 67) first year housestaff sessions with (n = 91) sessions of other employees in the health system. RESULTS: Between June and November 2020, forty-six first year housestaff attended at least one resilience coaching session. First year housestaff most commonly presented with feelings of anxiety and sadness and shared concerns related to the availability of social support. Resilience coaches most frequently provided practical assistance and ensured safety and comfort to first year housestaff. First year housestaff reported fewer physical or mental health symptoms and held shorter sessions with resilience coaches than non-housestaff. CONCLUSIONS: This work offers insights on how to address psychosocial functioning through low-intensity interventions delivered by lay personnel. More research is needed to understand the efficacy of this program and how best to engage housestaff in wellness and resilience programs throughout training, both during and beyond COVID-19.

The effectiveness of financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review.

Financial incentives are a controversial strategy for increasing vaccination. In this systematic review, we evaluated: 1) the effects of incentives on COVID-19 vaccinations; 2) whether effects differed based on study outcome, study design, incentive type and timing, or sample sociodemographic characteristics; and 3) the cost of incentives per additional vaccine administered. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Econlit up to March 2022 for terms related to COVID, vaccines, and financial incentives, and identified 38 peer-reviewed, quantitative studies. Independent raters extracted study data and evaluated study quality. Studies examined the impact of financial incentives on COVID-19 vaccine uptake (k = 18), related psychological outcomes (e.g., vaccine intentions, k = 19), or both types of outcomes. For studies of vaccine uptake, none found that financial incentives had a negative effect on uptake, and most rigorous studies found that incentives had a positive effect on uptake. By contrast, studies of vaccine intentions were inconclusive. While three studies concluded that incentives may negatively impact vaccine intentions for some individuals, they had methodological limitations. Study outcomes (uptake versus intentions) and study design (experimental versus observational frameworks) appeared to influence results more than incentive type or timing. Additionally, income and political affiliation may moderate responses to incentives. Most studies evaluating cost per additional vaccine administered found that they ranged from $49-75. Overall, fears about financial incentives decreasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake are not supported by the evidence. Financial incentives likely increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake. While these increases appear to be small, they may be meaningful across populations. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022316086 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316086).

"There's absolutely no downside to this, I mean, except community opposition:" A qualitative study of the acceptability of vending machines for harm reduction.

BACKGROUND: Vending machines for harm reduction (VMHR) are an innovative approach to deliver life-saving materials, information, and treatment for hard-to-reach populations, particularly for persons who inject drugs. The current study explores stakeholders' perspectives on the feasibility and acceptability of VMHR in Philadelphia. METHODS: From October 2021 to February 2022, we conducted 31 semi-structured interviews with potential end users, staff, and leadership at a local federally qualified health center, and community members. Trained coders extracted themes from interview transcripts across four key domains: materials and logistics, location, access, and community introduction. RESULTS: Interviewees from all stakeholder groups endorsed using VMHR to provide supplies for wound care, fentanyl test strips, naloxone, and materials to connect individuals to treatment and other services. Dispensing syringes and medications for opioid use disorder were commonly endorsed by health center staff but were more controversial among potential end users. Even within stakeholder groups, views varied with respect to where to locate the machines, but most agreed that the machine should be placed in the highest drug use areas. Across stakeholder groups, interviewees suggested several strategies to introduce and gain community acceptance of VMHR, including community education, one-on-one conversations with community members, and coupling the machine with safe disposal of syringes and information to link individuals to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders were generally receptive to VMHR. The current study findings are consistent with qualitative analyses from outside of the USA and contribute new ideas regarding the anticipated community response and best methods for introducing these machines to a community. With thoughtful planning and design, VMHR could be a feasible and acceptable modality to reduce death and disease transmission associated with the opioid and HIV epidemics in cities like Philadelphia.

"I Just Need Proper Treatment": Being Hospitalized for Endocarditis among Individuals Who Inject Drugs Being Hospitalized for Endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of hospitalization for injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) are increasing. Much is known about the poor outcomes of patients with IDU-IE; less is known about the patient experience during hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To explore the experience of being hospitalized for endocarditis among individuals who inject drugs, providing a foundation on which to develop strategies to improve care for these patients. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with hospitalized patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery with a history of injection drug use between February 2021 and May 2022 at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiothoracic surgery patients with a documented history of injection drug use and the ability to speak English were recruited during their hospital stay. APPROACH: Thematic analysis of interviews guided by phenomenology and harm reduction theory was used to identify recurrent themes. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed and analyzed using NVIVO software. KEY RESULTS: Interviews from 13 participants resulted in four major themes around Hospital Experience: (1) Kindness as an Antidote to Dehumanizing Treatment; (2) Relationships with the Care Team; (3) Withdrawal and Pain Management; and (4) Anticipating and Experiencing the Transition out the Hospital. Participants recounted long histories of dehumanizing care during previous hospitalizations, noted the value of open, sincere, and non-judgmental communication with clinical teams, expressed overall satisfaction with the management of their symptoms during the current hospitalization, reported self-discharging during previous hospitalizations due to undertreated pain and withdrawal, and noted significant challenges around discharge planning and execution. CONCLUSIONS: Participants noted structural (e.g., discharge planning) and interpersonal (e.g., stigma from care team) barriers to quality hospital care. They also noted that expressions of kindness from hospital staff were meaningful and comforting. Patients with IDU-IE face multi-dimensional challenges in the hospital. Their perspectives can meaningfully inform programs and initiatives to improve their outcomes and support recovery.

A systematic review of brief, freely accessible, and valid self-report measures for substance use disorders and treatment.

BACKGROUND: Self-report measures can improve evidence-based assessment practices in substance use disorder treatment, but many measures are burdensome and costly, limiting their utility in community practice and non-specialty healthcare settings. This systematic review identified and evaluated the psychometric properties of brief, free, and readily accessible self-report measures of substance use and related factors. METHODS: We searched two electronic databases (PsycINFO and PubMed) in May 2021 for published literature on scales, measures, or instruments related to substance use, substance use treatment, and recovery, and extracted the names of all measures. Measures were included if they were: (1) brief (25 items or fewer), (2) freely accessible in a ready-to-use format, and (3) had published psychometric data. RESULTS: An initial search returned 411 measures, of which 73 (18%) met criteria for inclusion. Included measures assessed a variety of substances (e.g., alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine) and measurement domains (e.g., use, severity, expectancies, withdrawal). Among these measures, 14 (19%) were classified as psychometrically "excellent," 27 (37%) were rated as "good," 32 (44%) were "adequate." CONCLUSIONS: Despite the shift toward evidence-based assessment in substance use disorder treatment in the last twenty years, key areas of public health concern are lacking pragmatic, psychometrically valid measures. Among the brief measures we reviewed, less than a fifth met criteria for psychometric "excellence" and most of these instruments fell into one measurement domain: screening for problematic substance use. Future research should focus both on improving the evidence base for existing brief self-report measures and creating new low-burden measures for specific substances and treatment constructs.

Not in my treatment center: Leadership's perception of barriers to MOUD adoption.

INTRODUCTION: Despite their well-established effectiveness, medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) are widely underutilized across the United States. In the context of a large publicly funded behavioral health system, we examined the relationship between a range of implementation barriers and a substance use disorder treatment agency's level of adoption of MOUD. METHODS: We surveyed leadership of publicly funded substance use disorder treatment centers in Philadelphia about the significance of barriers to implementing MOUD related to their workforce, organization, funding, regulations, and beliefs about MOUD's efficacy and safety. We queried leaders on the percentage of their patients with opioid use disorder who receive MOUD and examined associations between implementation barriers and MOUD adoption. RESULTS: Ratings of regulatory, organizational, or funding barriers of respondents who led high MOUD adopting agencies (N = 20) were indistinguishable from those who led agencies that were low adopting of MOUD (N = 23). In contrast, agency leaders who denied MOUD-belief or workforce barriers were significantly more likely to lead high-MOUD-adopting organizations. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that leadership beliefs about MOUD may be a key factor of the organizational decision to adopt and should be a target of implementation efforts to increase direct provision of these medications.

Reflections on implementation of a failure-point-focused outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy management program.

Management of outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) is complex, and incorporation of a pharmacist can improve outcomes. The creation of new clinical programs is often limited by staffing resources. We describe our collaborative program that utilized a failure-point-focused design process to optimize OPAT activities and management.

A comparison of patient appraisal of professional skills for GPs in training participating in differing education programs.

BACKGROUND: Medical boards and healthcare providers internationally are coming under increasing pressure to attract international medical graduates (IMGs) and overseas trained doctors (OTDs) to cope with predicted general practice (GP) doctor shortages. Various pathways to registration are made available for this purpose. There is very little understanding of the effects of different training pathways to licensing and registration on the ability of IMGs and OTDs, as well as locally trained doctors, to acquire the desirable professional skills deemed necessary for working effectively in the primary care sector. METHODS: Feedback from patients was collected at the end of their scheduled consultation with their doctor using a questionnaire consisting of 13 Likert scale items that asked them to rate their experience of the consultation. Feedback was obtained for doctors going through the Royal Australian College of General Practice (RACGP) Practice Experience Program (PEP) and the Australian General Practice Training Program (AGPT), with the former intended primarily for IMGs and OTDs, and the latter for local medical graduates including from New Zealand. Patient feedback was also obtained for patients visiting already Fellowed and experienced GPs for comparative purposes, resulting in data for three groups of doctors (two trainee, one already Fellowed). Rater consistency and agreement measures, analysis of variance, principal component analysis, t-tests and psychometric network analysis were undertaken between and within groups to identify similarities and differences in patient experience and professionalism of doctors. RESULTS: There was a small but significant difference in average patient raw scores given to PEP and AGPT doctors (90.25, 90.97%), with the highest scores for 'Respect shown' (92.24, 93.15%) and the lowest for 'Reassurance' 89.38, 89.84%). Male patients gave lower scores (89.56%) than female patients (91.23%) for both groups of doctors. In comparison, patients gave experienced GPs an average 91.38% score, with male patients giving a lower average score than female patients (90.62, 91.93%). Two components were found in the patient data (interpersonal communication, caring/empathy) that account for over 80% of the variance. When patient scores were aggregated by doctor, the average PEP and AGPT doctor scores received were 90.27 and 90.99%, in comparison to the average experienced GP score of 91.43%. Network analysis revealed differences in the connectedness of items between these two groups as well as in comparison with experienced GPs, suggesting that PEP doctors' skills are less cohesively developed in the areas of listening ability, explaining and providing reassurance. CONCLUSIONS: The small but statistically significant differences between doctor groups reported in this preliminary study are supplemented by percentile analysis, network analysis and principal component analysis to identify areas for further exploration and study. There is scope for improving the integration of interpersonal communication skills of GPs in Training with their caring and empathy skills, when compared with experienced GPs as a benchmark. Suggestions are made for enhancing professional skills from a patients' perspective in future training programs.

Stage migration of testicular germ cell tumours in Alberta, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: An absence of screening recommendations and the rapid progression of testicular germ cell tumours (TGCTs) offer a perspective on the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer presentations. We evaluated the presenting cancer stages of TGCTs in a real-world population before and during the pandemic to assess stage migration. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all new patients with TGCT diagnoses in Alberta, Canada, from Dec. 31, 2018, to Apr. 30, 2021, using the Alberta Cancer Registry. Because potential changes in staging should not occur instantaneously, we used a 6-month lag time from Apr. 1, 2020, for seminomas, and a 3-month lag time for nonseminomas, to compare initial cancer stages at presentation before and during the pandemic. We evaluated monthly rates of presentation by stage and histology. Exploratory outcomes included the largest tumour dimension, tumour markers and, for advanced disease, risk category and treatment setting. RESULTS: Of 335 patients with TGCTs, 231 were diagnosed before the pandemic and 104 during the pandemic (using a lag time). In total, 18 (7.8%) patients diagnosed before the pandemic presented with stage III disease, compared to 16 (15.4%) diagnosed during the pandemic (relative risk 1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-3.72). We observed no significant differences for secondary outcomes. Without a lag time, the rate ratio for a stage II presentation decreased significantly during the pandemic (0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.72). INTERPRETATION: We observed signs of TGCT stage migration during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by a decline in stage II disease and a potential rise in stage III disease. Management of TGCTs should remain a priority, even during a global pandemic.

Comparing output from two methods of participatory design for developing implementation strategies: traditional contextual inquiry vs. rapid crowd sourcing.

BACKGROUND: Participatory design methods are a key component of designing tailored implementation strategies. These methods vary in the resources required to execute and analyze their outputs. No work to date has examined the extent to which the output obtained from different approaches to participatory design varies. METHODS: We concurrently used two separate participatory design methods: (1) field observations and qualitative interviews (i.e., traditional contextual inquiry) and (2) rapid crowd sourcing (an innovation tournament). Our goal was to generate and compare information to tailor implementation strategies to increase the use of evidence-based data collection practices among one-to-one aides working with children with autism. Each method was executed and analyzed by study team members blinded to the output of the other method. We estimated the personnel time and monetary costs associated with each method to further facilitate comparison. RESULTS: Observations and interviews generated nearly double the number of implementation strategies (n = 26) than did the innovation tournament (n = 14). When strategies were classified into implementation strategies from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, there was considerable overlap in the content of identified strategies. However, strategies derived from observations and interviews were more specific than those from the innovation tournament. Five strategies (13%) reflected content unique to observations and interviews and 3 (8%) strategies were unique to the innovation tournament. Only observations and interviews identified implementation strategies related to adapting and tailoring to context; only the innovation tournament identified implementation strategies that used incentives. Observations and interviews required more than three times the personnel hours than the innovation tournament, but the innovation tournament was more costly overall due to the technological platform used. CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial overlap in content derived from observations and interviews and the innovation tournament, although there was greater specificity in the findings from observations and interviews. However, the innovation tournament yielded unique information. To select the best participatory design approach to inform implementation strategy design for a particular context, researchers should carefully consider unique advantages of each method and weigh the resources available to invest in the process.

Metrics to evaluate implementation scientists in the USA: what matters most?

BACKGROUND: Implementation science has grown rapidly as a discipline over the past two decades. An examination of how publication patterns and other scholarly activities of implementation scientists are weighted in the tenure and promotion process is needed given the unique and applied focus of the field. METHODS: We surveyed implementation scientists (mostly from the USA) to understand their perspectives on the following matters: (1) factors weighted in tenure and promotion for implementation scientists, (2) how important these factors are for success as an implementation scientist, (3) how impact is defined for implementation scientists, (4) top journals in implementation science, and (5) how these journals are perceived with regard to their prestige. We calculated univariate descriptive statistics for all quantitative data, and we used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to compare the participants' ratings of various factors. We analyzed open-ended qualitative responses using content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two implementation scientists completed the survey (response rate = 28.9%). Four factors were rated as more important for tenure and promotion decisions: number of publications, quality of publication outlets, success in obtaining external funding, and record of excellence in teaching. Six factors were rated as more important for overall success as an implementation scientist: presentations at professional meetings, involvement in professional service, impact of the implementation scientist's scholarship on the local community and/or state, impact of the implementation scientist's scholarship on the research community, the number and quality of the implementation scientist's community partnerships, and the implementation scientist's ability to disseminate their work to non-research audiences. Participants most frequently defined and described impact as changing practice and/or policy. This expert cohort identified Implementation Science as the top journal in the field. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a significant mismatch between the factors experts identified as being important to academic success (e.g., tenure and promotion) and the factors needed to be a successful implementation scientist. Findings have important implications for capacity building, although they are largely reflective of the promotion and tenure process in the USA.

It's all in the name: why exposure therapy could benefit from a new one.

Exposure therapy for anxiety and related disorders is the psychological intervention with the strongest support for its efficacy and effectiveness to date. Yet, it is the least used evidence-based intervention in routine clinical practice, with a long-acknowledged public relations problem. Despite a wealth of research aimed at improving uptake of exposure, exposure's marketing and branding remains an untapped target. We first introduce principles from the marketing literature to propose that the field take steps toward a rebranding and repackaging of exposure therapy to support efforts to implement it widely. Second, we present preliminary data on clinician preferences for the use of alternative terminology developed to be more palatable and marketable - "Supported Approach of Feared Experiences - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (SAFE-CBT)" - compared to traditional terminology. This initial survey indicated that most clinicians preferred use of the SAFE-CBT term when talking to patients, whereas only a minority preferred it for use among training clinicians. We conclude by discussing implications of these results for future efforts to implement exposure therapy more widely and set an agenda for future research in this space.

Automated identification of chicken distress vocalizations using deep learning models.

The annual global production of chickens exceeds 25 billion birds, which are often housed in very large groups, numbering thousands. Distress calling triggered by various sources of stress has been suggested as an 'iceberg indicator' of chicken welfare. However, to date, the identification of distress calls largely relies on manual annotation, which is very labour-intensive and time-consuming. Thus, a novel convolutional neural network-based model, light-VGG11, was developed to automatically identify chicken distress calls using recordings (3363 distress calls and 1973 natural barn sounds) collected on an intensive farm. The light-VGG11 was modified from VGG11 with significantly fewer parameters (9.3 million versus 128 million) and 55.88% faster detection speed while displaying comparable performance, i.e. precision (94.58%), recall (94.89%), F1-score (94.73%) and accuracy (95.07%), therefore more useful for model deployment in practice. To additionally improve light-VGG11's performance, we investigated the impacts of different data augmentation techniques (i.e. time masking, frequency masking, mixed spectrograms of the same class and Gaussian noise) and found that they could improve distress calls detection by up to 1.52%. Our distress call detection demonstration on continuous audio recordings, shows the potential for developing technologies to monitor the output of this call type in large, commercial chicken flocks.

Colleague appraisal of Australian general practitioners in training: an analysis of multisource feedback data.

BACKGROUND: Multisource feedback is an evidence-based and validated tool used to provide clinicians, including those in training, feedback on their professional and interpersonal skills. Multisource feedback is mandatory for participants in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Practice Experience Program and for some Australian General Practice Training Registrars. Given the recency of the Practice Experience Program, there are currently no benchmarks available for comparison within the program and to other comparable cohorts including doctors in the Australian General Practice Training program. The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare colleague feedback within and across General Practice trainee cohorts. METHODS: Colleague feedback, from multisource feedback of Practice Experience Program participants and Australian General Practice Training Registrars, collected between January 2018 and April 2020, was compared to identify similarities and differences. Analyses entailed descriptive statistics, between and within groups rater consistency and agreement measures, principal component analysis, t-tests, analysis of variance, and psychometric network analysis. RESULTS: Colleague ratings of Practice Experience Program participants (overall average 88.58%) were lower than for Registrars (89.08%), although this difference was not significant. 'Communication with patients' was rated significantly lower for Practice Experience Program participants (2.13%) while this group was rated significantly better for their 'Ability to say no' (1.78%). Psychometric network analyses showed stronger linkages between items making up the behavioural component (compared to the items of the performance and self-management components, as found by principal component analysis) for Practice Experience Program participants as compared to Registrars. Practice Experience Program participants were stronger in clinical knowledge and skills as well as confidentiality, while Registrars were stronger in communicating with patients, managing their own stress, and in their management and leadership skills. CONCLUSIONS: The multisource feedback scores of doctors undertaking the Practice Experience Program suggests that, while all mean values are 'very good' to 'excellent', there are areas for improvement. The linkages between skills suggests that Practice Experience Program doctors' skills are somewhat isolated and have yet to fully synthesise. We now have a better understanding of how different groups of General Practitioners in training compare with respect to professional and interpersonal skills. Based on the demonstrated differences, the Practice Experience Program might benefit from the addition of educational activities to target the less developed skills.