Expanding a Behavioral View on Digital Health Access: Drivers and Strategies to Promote Equity.

The potential and threat of digital tools to achieve health equity has been highlighted for over a decade, but the success of achieving equitable access to health technologies remains challenging. Our paper addresses renewed concerns regarding equity in digital health access that were deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our viewpoint is that (1) digital health tools have the potential to improve health equity if equitable access is achieved, and (2) improving access and equity in digital health can be strengthened by considering behavioral science-based strategies embedded in all phases of tool development. Using behavioral, equity, and access frameworks allowed for a unique and comprehensive exploration of current drivers of digital health inequities. This paper aims to present a compilation of strategies that can potentially have an actionable impact on digital health equity. Multilevel factors drive unequal access, so strategies require action from tool developers, individual delivery agents, organizations, and systems to effect change. Strategies were shaped with a behavioral medicine focus as the field has a unique role in improving digital health access; arguably, all digital tools require the user (individual, provider, and health system) to change behavior by engaging with the technology to generate impact. This paper presents a model that emphasizes using multilevel strategies across design, delivery, dissemination, and sustainment stages to advance digital health access and foster health equity.

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.

Sustainability Planning for a Community Network to Increase Participation in Evidence-Based Lifestyle Change Programs: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

Community-based chronic disease prevention programs can have long-term, broad public health benefits. Yet, only 40 to 60% of evidence-based health programs are sustained. Using established frameworks and evidence-based tools to characterize sustainability allows programs to develop structures and processes to leverage resources effectively to sustain effective program activities and systems. This study used a mixed-methods, partner-engaged approach to identify barriers and facilitators to sustaining a community network (the Alliance program) aimed to increase participation in evidence-based lifestyle change programs delivered in the community. Surveys and qualitative interviews were conducted with the Alliance partners based on the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Overall, partners felt Alliance had a high capacity for sustainability. Strategic planning, communication, and partnerships were areas partners prioritized to improve the potential for sustaining the program. Results informed the co-development of a sustainability action plan. This paper furthers our understanding of factors critical for the sustainability of community-based programs for chronic disease prevention and health equity and presents a process for developing action plans to build sustainability capacity.

The Impact of Behavior Change Counseling Delivered via a Digital Health Tool Versus Routine Care Among Adolescents With Obesity: Pilot Randomized Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Youth overweight and obesity is a public health crisis and increases the risk of poor cardiovascular health (CVH) and chronic disease. Health care providers play a key role in weight management, yet few tools exist to support providers in delivering tailored evidence-based behavior change interventions to patients. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this pilot randomized feasibility study was to determine the feasibility of implementing the Patient-Centered Real-Time Intervention (PREVENT) tool in clinical settings, generate implementation data to inform scale-up, and gather preliminary effectiveness data. METHODS: A pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted to examine the feasibility, implementation, and preliminary impact of PREVENT on patient knowledge, motivation, behaviors, and CVH outcomes. The study took place in a multidisciplinary obesity management clinic at a children's hospital within an academic medical center. A total of 36 patients aged 12 to 18 years were randomized to use PREVENT during their routine visit (n=18, 50%) or usual care control (n=18, 50%). PREVENT is a digital health tool designed for use by providers to engage patients in behavior change education and goal setting and provides resources to support change. Patient electronic health record and self-report behavior data were collected at baseline and 3 months after the intervention. Implementation data were collected via PREVENT, direct observation, surveys, and interviews. We conducted quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses to evaluate pretest-posttest patient changes and implementation data. RESULTS: PREVENT was feasible, acceptable, easy to understand, and helpful to patients. Although not statistically significant, only PREVENT patients increased their motivation to change their behaviors as well as their knowledge of ways to improve heart health and of resources. Compared to the control group, PREVENT patients significantly improved their overall CVH and blood pressure (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Digital tools can support the delivery of behavior change counseling in clinical settings to increase knowledge and motivate patients to change their behaviors. An appropriately powered trial is necessary to determine the impact of PREVENT on CVH behaviors and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06121193; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06121193.

Supporting Teams with Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability: the Design, Development, and Usability of a Digital Interactive Platform.

Background: The use of Designing for Dissemination and Sustainability (D4DS) principles and methods can support the development of research products (interventions, tools, findings) to match well with the needs and context of the intended audience and setting. D4DS principles and methods are not well-known or used during clinical and public health research; research teams would benefit from applying D4DS. This paper presents the development of a new digital platform for teams to learn and apply a D4DS process to their work. Methods: A user-centered design (UCD) approach engaged users (n=14) and an expert panel (n=6) in an iterative design process from discovery to prototyping and testing. We led five design sessions using Zoom and Figma software over a 5-month period. Users (71% academics; 29% practitioners) participated in at least 2 sessions. Following design sessions, feedback from users were summarized and discussed to generate design decisions. A prototype was then built and heuristically tested with 11 users who were asked to complete multiple tasks within the platform while verbalizing their decision-making using the 'think aloud' procedure. The System Usability Scale (SUS) was administered at the end of each testing session. After refinements to the platform were made, usability was reassessed with 7 of 11 same users to examine changes. Results: The interactive digital platform (the D4DS Planner) has two main components: 1) the Education Hub (e.g., searchable platform with literature, videos, websites) and 2) the Action Planner. The Action Planner includes 7 interactive steps that walk users through a set of activities to generate a downloadable D4DS action plan for their project. Participants reported that the prototype tool was moderately usable (SUS=66) but improved following refinements (SUS=71). Conclusions: This is a first of its kind tool that supports research teams in learning about and explicitly applying D4DS to their work. The use of this publicly available tool may increase the adoption, impact, and sustainment of a wide range of research products. The use of UCD yielded a tool that is easy to use. The future use and impact of this tool will be evaluated, and the tool will continue to be refined and improved.

How to design equitable digital health tools: A narrative review of design tactics, case studies, and opportunities.

With a renewed focus on health equity in the United States driven by national crises and legislation to improve digital healthcare innovation, there is a need for the designers of digital health tools to take deliberate steps to design for equity in their work. A concrete toolkit of methods to design for health equity is needed to support digital health practitioners in this aim. This narrative review summarizes several health equity frameworks to help digital health practitioners conceptualize the equity dimensions of importance for their work, and then provides design approaches that accommodate an equity focus. Specifically, the Double Diamond Model, the IDEAS framework and toolkit, and community collaboration techniques such as participatory design are explored as mechanisms for practitioners to solicit input from members of underserved groups and better design digital health tools that serve their needs. Each of these design methods requires a deliberate effort by practitioners to infuse health equity into the approach. A series of case studies that use different methods to build in equity considerations are offered to provide examples of how this can be accomplished and demonstrate the range of applications available depending on resources, budget, product maturity, and other factors. We conclude with a call for shared rigor around designing digital health tools that deliver equitable outcomes for members of underserved populations.

Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting. METHODS: Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.