Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation.

Background: Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource. Methods: We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection. Findings: The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software. Conclusion: We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

Impact of Primary Care-Mental Health Care Integration on Mental Health Care Engagement Across Racial and Ethnic Groups.

OBJECTIVE: Receiving mental health services as part of primary care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) might increase engagement in specialty mental health care. The authors reexamined the association between primary care-mental health integration (PCMHI) and continued engagement in specialty mental health care for VHA patients and assessed differences by race and ethnicity. METHODS: The study included 437,051 primary care patients with a first in-person specialty mental health encounter in 2015-2016 (no specialty mental health encounters in prior 12 months), including 46,417 patients with new PCMHI encounters in the year before the first specialty mental health encounter. Multivariable logistic regression assessed odds of follow-up specialty mental health care within 3 months of the first specialty mental health encounter. The dependent variable was care engagement (attending a second specialty mental health appointment); independent variables were whether patients were seen by PCMHI on the same day as the primary care appointment ("same-day access"), the time between PCMHI and first specialty mental health appointments, and race and ethnicity. RESULTS: PCMHI was associated with increased engagement in specialty mental health care for all patients, with a greater likelihood of engagement among non-Hispanic White patients. Same-day access to PCMHI was positively associated with care engagement, with no significant differences by race or ethnicity. PCMHI care within 3 months before a first specialty mental health encounter was associated with greater care engagement. CONCLUSIONS: PCMHI, especially same-day access to PCMHI care, may boost engagement in mental health care, although the study design precluded conclusions regarding causal relationships.

Challenges and promising solutions to engaging patients in healthcare implementation in the United States: an environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: One practice in healthcare implementation is patient engagement in quality improvement and systems redesign. Implementers in healthcare systems include clinical leadership, middle managers, quality improvement personnel, and others facilitating changes or adoption of new interventions. Patients provide input into different aspects of health research. However, there is little attention to involve patients in implementing interventions, especially in the United States (U.S.), and this might be essential to reduce inequities. Implementers need clear strategies to overcome challenges, and might be able to learn from countries outside the U.S. METHODS: We wanted to understand existing work about how patients are being included in implementation activities in real world U.S. healthcare settings. We conducted an environmental scan of three data sources: webinars, published articles, and interviews with implementers who engaged patients in implementation activities in U.S. healthcare settings. We extracted, categorized, and triangulated from data sources the key activities, recurring challenges, and promising solutions using a coding template. RESULTS: We found 27 examples of patient engagement in U.S. healthcare implementation across four webinars, 11 published articles, and seven interviews, mostly arranging patient engagement through groups and arranging processes for patients that changed how engaged they were able to be. Participants rarely specified if they were engaging a population experiencing healthcare inequities. Participants described eight recurring challenges; the two most frequently identified were: (1) recruiting patients representative of those served in the healthcare system; and (2) ensuring processes for equitable communication among all. We matched recurring challenges to promising solutions, such as logistic solutions on how to arrange meetings to enhance engagement or training in inclusivity and power-sharing. CONCLUSION: We clarified how some U.S. implementers are engaging patients in healthcare implementation activities using less and more intensive engagement. It was unclear whether reducing inequities was a goal. Patient engagement in redesigning U.S. healthcare service delivery appears similar to or less intense than in countries with more robust infrastructure for this, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. Challenges were common across jurisdictions, including retaining patients in the design/delivery of implementation activities. Implementers in any region can learn from those in other places.

Increasing consumer engagement: tools to engage service users in quality improvement or implementation efforts.

Introduction: Engaging service users or consumers in quality improvement or implementing a new service is important across settings and may reduce health inequities. Implementation strategies leveraging consumer engagement are neither commonly used nor robustly operationalized in implementation science. Implementers (e.g., middle managers, facilitators) want to involve consumers in implementation activities, but do not always feel confident in how to proceed. We developed a compendium of tools called Consumer Voice to guide others how to engage consumers in design/delivery of implementation strategies. Although generalizable to other settings, we developed Consumer Voice within the context of implementing suicide prevention treatments in healthcare to reach rural U.S. military veterans, as there are suicide inequities for people in rural areas. Methods: We developed Consumer Voice using a multistep process and human-centered design methods. In between steps, a design team met to generate insights from data, and decide which prototypes to create/refine. In preliminary work, we conducted a scan of examples in healthcare of patient engagement in implementation activities and interviewed two implementation experts about preferred learning styles. In Step 1, we interviewed 26 participants with experience in community engagement, implementation, or lived experience as a rural U.S. veteran with suicidal thoughts/behavior. In Step 2, 11 implementers beta tested prototypes then share feedback in focus groups. In Step 3, we reconvened participants from prior steps to review tools and, using nominal group technique, prioritized remaining recommendations. Results: Consumer Voice is online, modular, and nonlinear for self-guided learning tailored to beginner, intermediate, or advanced experience with consumer engagement. Tools consist of slides, audiovisual content with written text, and templates. Findings indicated there is not one "right" way to engage consumers in implementation activities, rather that implementers wanted tools showcasing core principles for consumer engagement and practical ideas. Discussion: Consumer Voice can be used by implementers to reflect and decide on how to apply consumer engagement implementation strategies to improve equitable dissemination and uptake of evidence-based practices. Most insights generated by user data were explicitly to build trust between consumers and professionals representing institutions, which may be one component to reducing healthcare inequities.

Identifying strategies to advance equitable implementation of co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder treatment in drug treatment courts: A study protocol.

Introduction: Behavioral health treatment disparities by race and ethnicity are well documented across the criminal legal system. Despite criminal legal settings such as drug treatment courts (DTCs) increasingly adopting evidence-based programs (EBPs) to improve care, there is a dearth of research identifying strategies to advance equitable implementation of EBPs and reduce racial/ethnic treatment disparities. This paper describes an innovative approach to identify community- and provider-generated strategies to support equitable implementation of an evidence-based co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder intervention, called Maintaining Independence and Sobriety through Systems Integration, Outreach and Networking-Criminal Justice (MISSION-CJ), in DTCs. Methods/design: Guided by the Health Equity Implementation Framework, qualitative interviews and surveys will assess factors facilitating and hindering equitable implementation of MISSION-CJ in DTCs among 30 Black/African American and/or Hispanic/Latino persons served and providers. Concept mapping with sixty Black/African American and/or Hispanic/Latino persons served and providers will gather community- and provider-generated strategies to address identified barriers. Finally, an advisory board will offer iterative feedback on the data to guide toolkit development and inform equitable implementation of MISSION-CJ within DTCs. Conclusions: The paper illustrates a protocol of a study based in community-engaged research and implementation science to understand multilevel drivers of racial/ethnic disparities in co-occurring disorder treatment and identify opportunities for intervention and improvements within criminal legal settings.

Implementation and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Multidisciplinary Telemedicine Pilot Initiative for Patients with Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Rural and Underserved Areas at a Major Academic Medical Center.

Background: Arkansas lacks adequate access to high-quality pain care, as evidenced, in part, by it having the second highest opioid prescribing rate in the United States. To improve access to high-quality treatment of chronic pain, we developed the Arkansas Improving Multidisciplinary Pain Care and Treatment (AR-IMPACT) Telemedicine Clinic, a multidisciplinary and interprofessional team of specialists who provide evidence-based pain management for patients with chronic pain. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot trial of the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic with rural, university-affiliated primary care clinics. We assessed the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic using an implementation framework and preliminary effectiveness measures. Specifically, we assessed 5 of the 8 implementation outcomes of the framework (ie, penetration, adoption, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) using a mixed methods approach. To evaluate implementation outcomes, we used surveys, interviews, and administrative data. We used electronic health record data to measure preliminary effectiveness (ie, changes in average morphine milligram equivalents per day and pain and depression scores). Results: The AR-IMPACT team saw 23 patients that were referred by 13 primary care physicians from three rural, university-affiliated primary care clinics over one year. Of the 19 patients willing to participate in the pilot study, 12 identified as women, 31.6% identified as Black, and over 50% had less than a bachelor's level education. Patients rated the clinic positively with high overall satisfaction. Referring physicians indicated high levels of appropriateness, acceptability, and feasibility of the program. AR-IMPACT team members identified several barriers and facilitators to the feasibility of implementing the program. No changes in preliminary effectiveness measures were statistically significant. Conclusion: Overall, the AR-IMPACT Telemedicine Clinic obtained moderate penetration and adoption, was highly acceptable to patients, was highly acceptable and appropriate to providers, and was moderately feasible to providers and AR-IMPACT team members.

Pre-implementation adaptation of suicide safety planning intervention using peer support in rural areas.

Introduction: Currently, seventeen veterans die by suicide daily in the United States (U.S.). There are disparities in suicide behavior and access to preventative treatment. One disparity is the suicide rate in rural areas, including the state of Arkansas-suicide deaths among rural veterans increased 48% in the last 2 decades, double that of urban veterans. One major challenge for veterans in rural areas is the lack of healthcare providers to provide Safety Planning Intervention, which is an effective intervention to reduce suicide attempts in the general adult population and among veterans. One solution is more broadly implementing Safety Planning Intervention, by using peers to deliver the intervention in rural communities. Before implementation, the intervention needs to be adapted for peer-to-peer delivery, and barriers and facilitators identified. Methods: Since January 2021, using community-based participatory research, we collaboratively developed and executed a 1 year study to adapt Safety Planning Intervention for peer-to-peer delivery in rural communities and identified implementation barriers and facilitators prior to spread. From July 2022 to February 2023, we conducted group interviews with 12 participants: rural veterans with prior suicidal thoughts or attempts in one U.S. state, their support persons, and healthcare professionals with expertise in veteran suicide prevention, Safety Planning Intervention, and/or peer delivery. We collected qualitative data through interviews during nine, 2 h meetings, and quantitative data from one anonymous survey and real-time anonymous voting-all on the topic of core and adaptable components of Safety Planning Intervention and implementation barriers and facilitators for peer delivery in rural communities. Questions about adaptation were designed according to processes in the ENGAGED for CHANGE community-engaged intervention framework and questions about facilitators and barriers were designed according to the Health Equity Implementation Framework. Participants categorized which Safety Planning Intervention components were core or adaptable, and how freely they could be adapted, using the metaphor of a traffic light in red (do not change), yellow (change with caution), and green (change freely) categories. Results: Participants made few actual adaptations (categorized according to the FRAME modification system), but strongly recommended robust training for peers. Participants identified 27 implementation facilitators and 47 barriers, organized using the Health Equity Implementation Framework. Two example facilitators were (1) peer-to-peer safety planning intervention was highly acceptable to rural veterans; and (2) some state counties already had veteran crisis programs that could embed this intervention for spread. Two example barriers were (1) some community organizations that might spread the intervention have been motivated initially, wanting to help right away, yet not able to sustain interventions; and (2) uncertainty about how to reach veterans at moderate suicide risk, as many crisis programs identified them when suicide risk was higher. Discussion: Our results provide one of the more comprehensive pre-implementation assessments to date for Safety Planning Intervention in any setting, especially for peer delivery (also referred to as task shifting) outside healthcare or clinical settings. One important next step will be mapping these barriers and facilitators to implementation strategies for peer-to-peer delivery. One finding surprised our research team-despite worse societal context in rural communities leading to disproportionate suicide deaths-participants identified several positive facilitators specifically about rural communities that can be leveraged during implementation.

Building a multicultural peer-consultation team: Planning, implementing, and early sustainment evaluation.

This article represents an implementation-focused evaluation of a multicultural peer-consultation team situated within a psychiatry department in a large academic medical center in the Southern United States. The evaluation comprised anonymous self-report questionnaires (n = 14) as well as individual (n = 3) or group interviews (n = 10) conducted by outside independent evaluators. Participants were current and former team members (i.e., graduate trainees, mental health care providers, clinical and research staff members) who voluntarily participated in this multimethod implementation evaluation. Results indicated that attendance on the team had several important impacts on members, and most notably an increased ability to provide multiculturally competent care, that is treatment that carefully and routinely considers the influence of culture and context on patients and therefore their clinical presentation. Further, no negative impacts from participating on the team were noted. A primary strength of the team's sustainability is that participation on the team was deemed to be relevant and useful by current and former team members. A major barrier to participation on the team is competing demands, such as high clinical loads. We conclude that this model for multicultural peer-consultation holds promise as an effective and implementable educational method for mental health care professionals. We discuss strengths, limitations, and future directions for research.

Assessing researchers' capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to conduct equity-oriented dissemination and implementation research, an exploratory cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A recent paradigm shift has led to an explicit focus on enhancing health equity through equity-oriented dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. However, the integration and bidirectional learning across these two fields is still in its infancy and siloed. This exploratory study aimed to examine participants' perceived capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey distributed online from December 2020 to April 2021. Participants were recruited at either D&I or health disparities-oriented conferences, meetings, through social media, or personal outreach via emails. Informed by the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model (COM-B), the survey queried respondents about different aspects of engaging in and conducting equity-oriented D&I research. All analyses were conducted in SPSS Version 27.0. RESULTS: A total of 180 participants responded to the survey. Most participants were women (81.7%), white (66.1%), academics (78.9%), and faculty members (53.9%). Many reported they were advanced (36.7%) or advanced beginners (27.8%) in the D&I field, and a substantial proportion (37.8%) reported being novice in D&I research that focused on health equity. Participants reported high motivation (e.g., 62.8% were motivated to apply theories, models, frameworks for promoting health equity in D&I research), but low capability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research (e.g., 5% had the information needed for promoting health equity in D&I research). Most participants (62.2%) reported not having used measures to examine equity in their D&I projects, and for those who did use measures, they mainly used individual-level measures (vs. organizational- or structural-level measures). When asked about factors that could influence their ability to conduct equity-oriented D&I research, 44.4% reported not having the skills necessary, and 32.2% stated difficulties in receiving funding for equity-oriented D&I research. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings provide empirical insight into the perspectives of researchers from different backgrounds on what is needed to conduct equity-oriented D&I research. These data suggest the need for a multi-pronged approach to enhance the capability and opportunities for conducting equity-oriented D&I work, such as: training specifically in equity-oriented D&I, collaboration between D&I researchers with individuals with expertise and lived experience with health equity research, funding for equity-oriented D&I research, and recognition of the value of community engaged research in promotion packages.

Determining feasibility of incorporating consumer engagement into implementation activities: study protocol of a hybrid effectiveness-implementation type II pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation researchers could draw from participatory research to engage patients (consumers of healthcare) in implementation processes and possibly reduce healthcare disparities. There is a little consumer involvement in healthcare implementation, partially because no formal guidance exists. We will create and pilot a toolkit of methods to engage consumers from the US' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) in selecting and tailoring implementation strategies. This toolkit, Consumer Voice, will provide guidance on what, when, where, how and why an implementer might engage consumers in implementing treatments. We will pilot the toolkit by implementing Safety Planning Intervention for suicide prevention with rural veterans, a population with suicide disparities. Safety Planning Intervention is effective for reducing suicidal behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Aim 1, we will use participatory approaches and user-centred design to develop Consumer Voice and its methods. In Aim 2, we will pilot Consumer Voice by implementing the Safety Planning Intervention in two clinics serving rural VHA patients. One site will receive a current implementation strategy (Implementation Facilitation) only; the second will receive Implementation Facilitation plus Consumer Voice. We will use mixed methods to assess feasibility and acceptability of Consumer Voice. We will compare sites on preliminary implementation (reach, adoption, fidelity) and clinical outcomes (depression severity, suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviour). In Aim 3, we will evaluate Aim 2 outcomes at 20 months to assess sustained impact. We will gather qualitative data on sustainability of the Safety Planning Intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These studies are overseen by the Institutional Review Board at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. We plan to use traditional academic modalities of dissemination (eg, conferences, publications). We plan to disseminate findings through meetings with other trainers in implementation practice so they may adopt Consumer Voice. We plan to share results with local community boards.

Perspectives on learning to practice reflexivity while engaging communities in implementation science.

Background: As implementation scientists and practitioners engage community members and service users, reflexivity rises as a critical approach for managing power imbalances and effective collaborative work to promote equity. Reflexivity is an approach for acknowledging scientists' own positions, including their understanding and limits of how they view their phenomena of inquiry. We describe our perspective practicing reflexivity as an implementation science team new to community engagement. Methods: We spent over two years learning principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to inform implementation science and practice, then applied CPBR principles into a new community-academic partnership in August 2020 for and with veterans of the United States Military living in rural Arkansas. We used five methods to practice reflexivity for the first time: identifying positionality, writing fieldnotes, obtaining mentorship on technical aspects, comparing head notes, and consulting reference materials. Discussion: We found multiple methods for practicing reflexivity to be feasible, although difficult to stay consistent with busy schedules. Fieldnotes especially required commitment and were important not to minimize. Written fieldnotes enabled us to reflect on successes and missteps, funneling into action planning. Head notes allowed emotional catharsis and to generate insights based on each other's perspectives. Referencing books or course modules reminded us of ideal CBPR principles. Discussion with mentors helped us with technical aspects and balancing real-world challenges with ideal CBPR principles. Our methods to practice reflexivity were valuable and directly impacted process and research outcomes. Future training for implementation science and practice might consider reflexivity practice as a core competency.

Economic analyses of behavioral health intervention implementation: Perspective on stakeholder engagement.

To provide full potential benefits to patients, behavioral health interventions often require comprehensive and systematic implementation efforts. The costs of these efforts should therefore be included when organizations decide to fund or adopt a new intervention. However, existing guidelines for conducting economic analyses like cost-effectiveness analyses and budget impact analyses are not well-suited to the complexity of the behavioral healthcare pathway and its many stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement, when used effectively with recent innovations in economic analysis, advance more equitable access to interventions for individuals living with behavioral health conditions. But early and ongoing stakeholder engagement has not yet been incorporated into best-practice guidelines for economic evaluation. We discuss our perspective, as researchers and clinicians in a large integrated health system, on how the integration of stakeholder engagement with existing economic analysis methods could improve decision-making about implementation of behavioral health interventions.

A more practical guide to incorporating health equity domains in implementation determinant frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Due to striking disparities in the implementation of healthcare innovations, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners can meaningfully use implementation determinant frameworks to understand why disparities exist in access, receipt, use, quality, or outcomes of healthcare. Our prior work documented and piloted the first published adaptation of an existing implementation determinant framework with health equity domains to create the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We recommended integrating these three health equity domains to existing implementation determinant frameworks: (1) culturally relevant factors of recipients, (2) clinical encounter or patient-provider interaction, and (3) societal context (including but not limited to social determinants of health). This framework was developed for healthcare and clinical practice settings. Some implementation teams have begun using the Health Equity Implementation Framework in their evaluations and asked for more guidance. METHODS: We completed a consensus process with our authorship team to clarify steps to incorporate a health equity lens into an implementation determinant framework. RESULTS: We describe steps to integrate health equity domains into implementation determinant frameworks for implementation research and practice. For each step, we compiled examples or practical tools to assist implementation researchers and practitioners in applying those steps. For each domain, we compiled definitions with supporting literature, showcased an illustrative example, and suggested sample quantitative and qualitative measures. CONCLUSION: Incorporating health equity domains within implementation determinant frameworks may optimize the scientific yield and equity of implementation efforts by assessing and ideally addressing implementation and equity barriers simultaneously. These practical guidance and tools provided can assist implementation researchers and practitioners to concretely capture and understand barriers and facilitators to implementation disparities.

Lagniappes: "A Little Something Extra" or Unintended Positive Consequences of Implementation Facilitation.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation facilitation is an effective strategy that increases uptake of behavioral health interventions. Facilitation is grounded in partnerships with leadership and clinical stakeholders. Researchers have documented some negative consequences of facilitation-time, financial, and opportunity costs. Clinical leaders often agree to facilitation with the promise of increased implementation of an intervention. This study examined whether unintended positive consequences of facilitation might offset known costs. METHODS: This study was part of a stepped-wedge, hybrid type 2, pragmatic trial that used implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration (PCMHI) via telehealth technology in six satellite Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinics. Two facilitators provided facilitation for at least 6 months. This study included a focused analysis of an emerging phenomenon captured through weekly debriefing interviews with facilitators: unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation, termed "lagniappes" here. A rapid content analysis was conducted to identify and categorize these consequences. RESULTS: The authors documented unintended positive consequences of the facilitation across the six VHA sites and categorized them into three clinically relevant domains: supporting PCMHI outreach at other clinics not in the original catchment area (e.g., providing tools to other sites), strengthening patient access (e.g., resolving unnecessary patient travel), and improving or modifying work processes (e.g., clarifying suicide assessment protocols). The positive consequences benefited sites and strengthened ongoing partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: Documenting unintended positive consequences of implementation facilitation may increase leadership engagement. Facilitators should consider leveraging unintended positive consequences as advantages for the site that may add efficiency to facility processes and workflows.

Sexual minority men want provider behavior consistent with attitudes and norms during patient-provider interactions regarding HIV prevention.

HIV is a health problem for sexual minority men in the United States. One factor among many that contributes to this HIV disparity is poor patient-provider interactions. We focused on specific provider behavior preferred by sexual minority men during patient-provider interactions about HIV prevention. We interviewed 20 HIV-negative sexual minority men who endorsed 1+ psychosocial HIV risk factor. We used follow up interviews and conventional content analysis. Among our sample, 55% identified as White; 50% as bisexual, (Mage = 28.45). Findings suggested even some providers knowledgeable about sexual minority health provided unhelpful care to sexual minority men (knowledge-behavior discrepancy). Some knowledgeable providers engaged in affirmative, tailored treatment (knowledge-behavior consistency). Specific behaviors of preferred patient-provider interactions regarding HIV prevention are reported. Our recommendations are based on patient perceptions, which is a limit and strength. We identified an important type of unhelpful patient-provider interaction for HIV-negative sexual minority men beyond discriminatory experiences. Patient-provider interaction efforts need to go beyond education to help providers practice skills. With increased focus on cultural competency for sexual minority patients, more providers may advertise their practice as affirmative, yet interactions will likely vary, may require lifelong practice of cultural humility, and impact HIV prevention.

The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment.

BACKGROUND: Researchers could benefit from methodological advancements to advance uptake of new treatments while also reducing healthcare disparities. A comprehensive determinants framework for healthcare disparity implementation challenges is essential to accurately understand an implementation problem and select implementation strategies. METHODS: We integrated and modified two conceptual frameworks-one from implementation science and one from healthcare disparities research to develop the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the Health Equity Implementation Framework to a historical healthcare disparity challenge-hepatitis C virus (HCV) and its treatment among Black patients seeking care in the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A specific implementation assessment at the patient level was needed to understand any barriers to increasing uptake of HCV treatment, independent of cost. We conducted a preliminary study to assess how feasible it was for researchers to use the Health Equity Implementation Framework. We applied the framework to design the qualitative interview guide and interpret results. Using quantitative data to screen potential participants, this preliminary study consisted of semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected sample of Black, rural-dwelling, older adult VA patients (N = 12), living with HCV, from VA medical clinics in the Southern part of the USA. RESULTS: The Health Equity Implementation Framework was feasible for implementation researchers. Barriers and facilitators were identified at all levels including the patient, provider (recipients), patient-provider interaction (clinical encounter), characteristics of treatment (innovation), and healthcare system (inner and outer context). Some barriers reflected general implementation issues (e.g., poor care coordination after testing positive for HCV). Other barriers were related to healthcare disparities and likely unique to racial minority patients (e.g., testimonials from Black peers about racial discrimination at VA). We identified several facilitators, including patient enthusiasm to obtain treatment because of its high cure rates, and VA clinics that offset HCV stigma by protecting patient confidentiality. CONCLUSION: The Health Equity Implementation Framework showcases one way to modify an implementation framework to better assess health equity determinants as well. Researchers may be able to optimize the scientific yield of research inquiries by identifying and addressing factors that promote or impede implementation of novel treatments in addition to eliminating healthcare disparities.

Using implementation facilitation to implement primary care mental health integration via clinical video telehealth in rural clinics: protocol for a hybrid type 2 cluster randomized stepped-wedge design.

BACKGROUND: Integrating mental health providers into primary care clinics improves access to and outcomes of mental health care. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) program, mental health providers are co-located in primary care clinics, but the implementation of this model is challenging outside large VA medical centers, especially for rural clinics without full mental health staffing. Long wait times for mental health care, little collaboration between mental health and primary care providers, and sub-optimal outcomes for rural veterans could result. Telehealth could be used to provide PCMHI to rural clinics; however, the clinical effectiveness of the tele-PCMHI model has not been tested. Based on evidence that implementation facilitation is an effective implementation strategy to increase uptake of PCMHI when delivered on-site at larger VA clinics, it is hypothesized that this strategy may also be effective with regard to ensuring adequate uptake of the tele-PCMHI model at rural VA clinics. METHODS: This study is a hybrid type 2 pragmatic effectiveness-implementation trial of tele-PCMHI in six sites over 24 months. Tele-PCMHI, which will be delivered by clinical staff available in routine care settings, will be compared to usual care. Fidelity to the care model will be monitored but not controlled. We will use the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the patient-level clinical effectiveness of tele-PCMHI in rural VA clinics and also to evaluate the fidelity to and outcomes of the implementation strategy, implementation facilitation. The proposed study will employ a stepped-wedge design in which study sites sequentially begin implementation in three steps at 6-month intervals. Each step will include (1) a 6-month period of implementation planning, followed by (2) a 6-month period of active implementation, and (3) a final period of stepped-down implementation facilitation. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of PCMHI in a novel setting and via a novel method (clinical video telehealth). We will test the feasibility of using implementation facilitation as an implementation strategy to deploy tele-PCMHI in rural VA clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02713217 . Registered on 18 March 2016.

Positive social interaction offsets impact of low socioeconomic status on stress.

BACKGROUND: Stress is associated with unhealthy behaviors and premature morbidity and mortality, especially among those of low socioeconomic status (SES). Clarifying the roles of stress-related risk and protective factors can guide interventions designed to reduce stress and improve health among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. PURPOSE: (1) Replicate prior research showing that lower SES is associated with higher stress in a predominantly racial minority, socioeconomically disadvantaged sample, and (2) test the hypothesis that different types of social support (a protective factor) mitigate the deleterious effects of SES on self-reported perceived stress. METHODS: Low-income patients (N = 508, 54% male, 68% African American, Mage = 28) from a publicly-funded clinic provided demographic information and then completed measures of perceived stress and social support. Four types of social support were assessed (viz., affectionate, emotional/informational, positive social interaction, and tangible). Structural equation modeling tested the hypothesized associations among SES, social support, and stress. RESULTS: Individuals of lower SES, ß = -0.27 (0.08), p < 0.01, and lower overall social support, ß = -0.47 (0.05), p < 0.001, reported higher stress. Social support moderated associations between SES and stress, with participants with lower SES benefitting the most from social support. Of the four types of social support that were measured, positive social interaction was the strongest moderator, ß = 0.20 (0.08), p = 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: The associations among SES, stress, and social support corroborate prior research. Positive social interaction was particularly important for decreasing stress among socioeconomically disadvantaged persons.

Syndemic Indicators Predict Poor Medication Adherence and Increased Health Care Utilization for Urban HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex with Men.

Research on men who have sex with men (MSM) has uncovered psychosocial factors (syndemic indicators) that are associated additively with poor health. To test these relations in a sample of HIV-positive MSM, we enrolled 166 patients from two HIV clinics. We investigated relations between syndemic indicators and outcomes including medication nonadherence, condomless anal sex (CAS), and healthcare utilization. A large proportion of participants reported each syndemic indicator: polysubstance use 43%, suicide attempt 28%, childhood sexual abuse 39%, partner abuse 64%. Analyses confirmed an additive effect, whereby endorsing 1+ indicator was associated with increased odds of medication nonadherence and medical hospitalization.