Assessing the implementation of a multi-component hypertension program in a Guatemalan under-resourced dynamic context: an application of the RE-AIM/PRISM extension for sustainability and health equity.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid changes in healthcare delivery in Guatemala's public primary care settings. A new hypertension program, implemented as part of a type 2 hybrid trial since 2019, exemplifies an implementation effort amidst a changing context in an under-resourced setting. We assessed the implementation of an evidence-based intervention (EBI; protocol-based hypertension treatment) and one of its main implementation strategies (team-based collaborative care), raising implications for health equity and sustainability. We present innovative application of systems thinking visuals. METHODS: Conducting a convergent mixed methods analysis, we assessed implementation in response to contextual changes across five Ministry of Health (MoH) districts at the pandemic's onset. Utilizing quantitative programmatic data and qualitative interviews with stakeholders (n=18; health providers, administrators, study staff), we evaluated dimensions of "Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance," RE-AIM (Reach, Implementation delivery + adaptations), and "Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model," PRISM (Organizational perspective on the EBI, Fit, Implementation and sustainability infrastructure) frameworks. We assessed representativeness by comparing participants to census data. To assess implementation delivery, we built behavior-over-time (BOT) graphs with quantitative programmatic data (July 2019-July 2021). To assess adaptations and contextual changes, we performed matrix-based thematic qualitative analysis. We converged quantitative implementation delivery data + qualitative adaptations data in joint displays. Finally, we analyzed qualitative and quantitative results across RE-AIM/PRISM and health districts to identify equity and sustainability considerations. RESULTS: Contextual factors that facilitated program delivery included the perception that the EBI was beneficial, program champions, and staff communication. Key barriers to implementation delivery included competition with other primary care activities and limited implementation infrastructure (e.g., equipment, medications). Contextual changes related to COVID-19 hindered implementation delivery, threatened sustainability, and may have exacerbated inequities. However, adaptations that were planned enhanced implementation delivery and may have supported improved equity and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of an EBI's benefits and program champions are important for supporting initial uptake. The ability to plan adaptations amid rapid contextual changes has potential advantages for sustainability and equitable delivery. Systems thinking tools and mixed methods approaches may shed light on the relations between context, adaptations, and equitable and sustainable implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03504124.

Cumulative Stress Across the Life Course and Biological Aging in Adulthood.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial stressors have been linked with accelerated biological aging in adults; however, few studies have examined stressors across the life course in relation to biological aging. METHODS: In 359 individuals (57% White, 34% Black) from the Child Health and Development Studies Disparities study, economic (income, education, financial strain), social (parent-child relations, caretaker responsibilities) and traumatic (death of a sibling or child, violence exposure) stressors were assessed at multiple time points (birth and ages 9, 15, and 50 years). Experiences of major discrimination were assessed at age 50. Life period stress scores were then assessed as childhood (birth-age 15 years) and adulthood (age 50 years). At age 50 years, participants provided blood samples, and DNA methylation was assessed with the EPIC BeadChip. Epigenetic age was estimated using six epigenetic clocks (Horvath, Hannum, Skin and Blood age, PhenoAge, GrimAge, Dunedin Pace of Aging). Age acceleration was determined using residuals from regressing chronologic age on each of the epigenetic age metrics. Telomere length was assessed using the quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based methods. RESULTS: In linear regression models adjusted for race and gender, total life stress, and childhood and adult stress independently predicted accelerated aging based on GrimAge and faster pace of aging based on the DunedinPace. Associations were attenuated after adjusting for smoking status. In sex-stratified analyses, greater childhood stress was associated with accelerated epigenetic aging among women but not men. No associations were noted with telomere length. CONCLUSIONS: We found that cumulative stressors across the life course were associated with accelerated epigenetic age, with differences by sex (e.g., accelerated among women). Further research of this association in large and diverse samples is needed.

Challenges and Opportunities for Paving the Road to Global Health Equity Through Implementation Science.

Implementation science focuses on enhancing the widespread uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve population health. However, optimizing implementation science to promote health equity in domestic and global resource-limited settings requires considering historical and sociopolitical processes (e.g., colonization, structural racism) and centering in local sociocultural and indigenous cultures and values. This review weaves together principles of decolonization and antiracism to inform critical and reflexive perspectives on partnerships that incorporate a focus on implementation science, with the goal of making progress toward global health equity. From an implementation science perspective, we synthesize examples of public health evidence-based interventions, strategies, and outcomes applied in global settings that are promising for health equity, alongside a critical examination of partnerships, context, and frameworks operationalized in these studies. We conclude with key future directions to optimize the application of implementation science with a justice orientation to promote global health equity. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 45 is April 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Leveraging a Digitized Mental Wellness (DIGImw) Program to Provide Mental Health Care for Internally Displaced People.

A local insurgency has displaced many people in the northern Mozambican province of Cabo Delgado. The authors' global team (comprising members from Brazil, Mozambique, South Africa, and the United States) has been scaling up mental health services across the neighboring province of Nampula, Mozambique, now host to >200,000 displaced people. The authors describe how mental health services can be expanded by leveraging digital technology and task-shifting (i.e., having nonspecialists deliver mental health care) to address the mental health needs of displaced people. These methods can serve as a model for other researchers and clinicians aiming to address mental health needs arising from humanitarian disasters in low-resource settings.

Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.

PURPOSE: Persistent smoking is associated with poor outcomes in cancer care. It is strongly recommended that oncology care providers provide cessation support; however, there is limited information about smoking cessation assessment and treatment patterns in routine oncology practice. METHODS: Leaders of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) and National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (National Accredited Program for Breast Cancer) elected to participate in a national quality improvement initiative (Just ASK) focused on smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care. Online baseline survey responses were received from 762 accredited programs. RESULTS: Most programs reported regularly asking about smoking (89.9%), documenting smoking history and current use (85.8%), and advising patients to quit (71.2%). However, less than half of programs reported documenting a smoking cessation treatment plan (41.7%). Even fewer programs reported regularly assisting patients with quitting (41.3%), providing self-help information (27.2%), providing individual counseling (18.2%), and referring patients to an affiliated tobacco treatment program (26.1%) or external Quitline (28.5%). Very few programs reported regularly prescribing medications (17.6%). Principal barriers to tobacco treatment delivery were lack of staff training (68.8%), lack of designated specialists (61.9%), perceived patient resistance (58.3%), lack of available resources (53.3%), competing clinical priorities (50.9%), inadequate program funding (40.6%), insufficient staff time (42.4%), and inadequate reimbursement (31.0%). CONCLUSION: Although programs reported a high rate of smoking assessment, critical gaps in advising and assisting patients with cessation were found. Improving equitable delivery of smoking assessment/treatment in cancer care will require addressing key organizational and provider barriers for implementation of best practices.

Community Engagement in Behavioral Medicine: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Behavioral medicine has made key contributions toward improving health outcomes. Engaging community partners in research is critical to addressing persistent health inequities. The aim of this scoping review was to explore how researchers engaged community partners within the field of behavioral medicine research from 2005 to 2023. METHOD: Publication databases and gray literature were searched for research that engaged community partners to address questions relevant to behavioral medicine. Articles were screened by title and abstract, and then by full text. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were coded using the framework provided by the Engagement Navigator to identify engagement approaches, methods, and tools and when they were used during the research. RESULTS: Of 1486 articles initially identified, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles used well-known approaches (e.g., community-based participatory research; 67%), methods (e.g., advisory committees; 59%), and tools (e.g., interviews; 41%), and engaged with healthcare service providers (62%) and/or patients (53%). Community partners were most often included in research planning and design (79%), and less often in dissemination (45%). CONCLUSION: Community engagement has considerable potential to address health inequities. Our assessment of the approaches, methods, and tools used by behavioral medicine researchers to engage with a diverse range of community partners points toward promising strategies for enhancing the impact of community engagement. Researchers should incorporate explicit descriptions of community engagement strategies in publications, an outcome that could be facilitated by clear publishing guidelines, structured reporting tools, and clear messaging from funders about the value of community engagement in behavioral medicine research.

National Survey of Patient Safety Experiences in Hospital Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals were caring for increasing numbers of patients with a novel and highly contagious respiratory illness, forcing adaptations in care delivery. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of these adaptations on patient safety in hospital medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a nationwide survey to understand patient safety challenges experienced by hospital medicine clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed to members of the Society of Hospital Medicine via an e-mail listserv. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions to elicit respondents' experience in five domains: error reporting and communication, staffing, equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation practices, and infrastructure. Quantitative questions were reported as counts and percentages; qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for relevant themes. RESULTS: Of 196 total responses, 167 respondents (85.2%) were attending physicians and 85 (43.8%) practiced at teaching hospitals. Safety concerns commonly identified included nursing shortages (71.0%), limiting patient interactions to conserve PPE (61.9%), and feeling that one was practicing in a more hazardous environment (61.4%). In free-text responses, clinicians described poor outcomes and patient decompensation due to provider and equipment shortages, as well as communication lapses and diagnostic errors resulting from decreased patient contact and the need to follow isolation protocols. CONCLUSION: Efforts made to accommodate shortages in staff and equipment, adapt to limited PPE, and enforce isolation policies had unintended consequences that affected patient safety and created a more hazardous environment characterized by less efficient care, respiratory decompensations, diagnostic errors, and poor communication with patients.

Advancing the Science and Application of Implementation Science to Promote Health Equity: Commentary on the Symposium.

There has been an increasing focus on making health equity a more explicit and foundational aspect of the research being conducted in public health and implementation science. This commentary provides an overview of five reviews in this Annual Review of Public Health symposium on Implementation Science and Health Equity. These articles reflect on and advance the application of core implementation science principles and concepts, with a focus on promoting health equity across a diverse range of public health and health care settings. Taken together, the symposium articles highlight critical conceptual, methodological, and empirical advances in the study designs, frameworks, and approaches that can help address equity considerations in the use of implementation science in both domestic and global contexts. Finally, this commentary highlights how work featured in this symposium can help inform future directions for rapidly taking public health to scale, particularly among systemically marginalized populations and communities. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Public Health, Volume 45 is April 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Protocol for a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized clinical trial testing behavioral economic implementation strategies to increase supplemental breast MRI screening among patients with extremely dense breasts.

BACKGROUND: Increased breast density augments breast cancer risk and reduces mammography sensitivity. Supplemental breast MRI screening can significantly increase cancer detection among women with dense breasts. However, few women undergo this exam, and screening is consistently lower among racially minoritized populations. Implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics ("nudges") can promote evidence-based practices by improving clinician decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. Nudges directed toward clinicians and patients may facilitate the implementation of supplemental breast MRI. METHODS: Approximately 1600 patients identified as having extremely dense breasts after non-actionable mammograms, along with about 1100 clinicians involved with their care at 32 primary care or OB/GYN clinics across a racially diverse academically based health system, will be enrolled. A 2 × 2 randomized pragmatic trial will test nudges to patients, clinicians, both, or neither to promote supplemental breast MRI screening. Before implementation, rapid cycle approaches informed by clinician and patient experiences and behavioral economics and health equity frameworks guided nudge design. Clinicians will be clustered into clinic groups based on existing administrative departments and care patterns, and these clinic groups will be randomized to have the nudge activated at different times per a stepped wedge design. Clinicians will receive nudges integrated into the routine mammographic report or sent through electronic health record (EHR) in-basket messaging once their clinic group (i.e., wedge) is randomized to receive the intervention. Independently, patients will be randomized to receive text message nudges or not. The primary outcome will be defined as ordering or scheduling supplemental breast MRI. Secondary outcomes include MRI completion, cancer detection rates, and false-positive rates. Patient sociodemographic information and clinic-level variables will be examined as moderators of nudge effectiveness. Qualitative interviews conducted at the trial's conclusion will examine barriers and facilitators to implementation. DISCUSSION: This study will add to the growing literature on the effectiveness of behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies to promote evidence-based interventions. The design will facilitate testing the relative effects of nudges to patients and clinicians and the effects of moderators of nudge effectiveness, including key indicators of health disparities. The results may inform the introduction of low-cost, scalable implementation strategies to promote early breast cancer detection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05787249. Registered on March 28, 2023.

A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.

Objectives: Long-term delivery, or sustainability, of evidence-based interventions is necessary for public health benefits to be realised. However, sustainment of effective interventions is poor. Understanding the evidence-base and identifying potential gaps is necessary to inform where future research efforts are most warranted. Study design: We undertook a repeat cross-sectional bibliographic review of research published in 10 public health journals across three time periods (2010, 2015 and 2020/2021). Methods: Studies were eligible if they were a data-based study or review article. Studies were assessed as to whether they focused on sustainability. The percentage of public health research studies assessing sustainability overall and by the three time periods was calculated. The association between time period and the proportion of sustainability articles was assessed using logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise study characteristics overall and by time period. Results: 10,588 data-based articles were identified, of which 1.3 % (n = 136) focused on sustainability. There was a statistically significant association between time period and the proportion of sustainability research, with a slight increase across the three time periods: 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.1 %, 0.7 %) in 2010, 1.4 % (95 % CI: 1.0 %, 1.9 %) in 2015 and 1.6 % (95 % CI: 1.3 %, 1.9 %) in 2020/2021. Most research was descriptive/epidemiological (n = 69, 51 %), few focused on measurement (n = 2, 1.5 %) and none on cost effectiveness. Only one intervention study assessed the effect of specific sustainability strategies. Conclusions: This bibliographic review highlights the need for more public health research on sustainability, particularly in the areas of measurement, sustainability interventions, and cost effectiveness.

Integrating a focus on health equity in implementation science: Case examples from the national cancer institute's implementation science in cancer control centers (ISC3) network.

Background: A Health Equity Task Force (HETF) of members from seven Centers funded by the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Implementation Science in Cancer Control Centers (ISC3) network sought to identify case examples of how Centers were applying a focus on health equity in implementation science to inform future research and capacity-building efforts. Methods: HETF members at each ISC3 collected information on how health equity was conceptualized, operationalized, and addressed in initial research and capacity-building efforts across the seven ISC3 Centers funded in 2019-2020. Each Center completed a questionnaire assessing five health equity domains central to implementation science (e.g., community engagement; implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs); and engaging underrepresented scholars). Data generated illustrative examples from these five domains. Results: Centers reported a range of approaches focusing on health equity in implementation research and capacity-building efforts, including (1) engaging diverse community partners/settings in making decisions about research priorities and projects; (2) applying health equity within a single TMF applied across projects or various TMFs used in specific projects; (3) evaluating health equity in operationalizing and measuring health and implementation outcomes; (4) building capacity for health equity-focused implementation science among trainees, early career scholars, and partnering organizations; and (5) leveraging varying levels of institutional resources and efforts to engage, include, and support underrepresented scholars. Conclusions: Examples of approaches to integrating health equity across the ISC3 network can inform other investigators and centers' efforts to build capacity and infrastructure to support growth and expansion of health equity-focused implementation science.

Protocol to evaluate sequential electronic health record-based strategies to increase genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk across diverse patient populations in gynecology practices.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for individuals including, but not limited to, those with a personal history of ovarian cancer, young-onset (< 50 years) breast cancer, and a family history of ovarian cancer or male breast cancer. Genetic testing is underused overall, and rates are consistently lower among Black and Hispanic populations. Behavioral economics-informed implementation strategies, or nudges, directed towards patients and clinicians may increase the use of this evidence-based clinical practice. METHODS: Patients meeting eligibility for germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer will be identified using electronic phenotyping algorithms. A pragmatic cohort study will test three sequential strategies to promote genetic testing, two directed at patients and one directed at clinicians, deployed in the electronic health record (EHR) for patients in OB-GYN clinics across a diverse academic medical center. We will use rapid cycle approaches informed by relevant clinician and patient experiences, health equity, and behavioral economics to optimize and de-risk our strategies and methods before trial initiation. Step 1 will send patients messages through the health system patient portal. For non-responders, step 2 will reach out to patients via text message. For non-responders, Step 3 will contact patients' clinicians using a novel "pend and send" tool in the EHR. The primary implementation outcome is engagement with germline genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer predisposition, defined as a scheduled genetic counseling appointment. Patient data collected through the EHR (e.g., race/ethnicity, geocoded address) will be examined as moderators of the impact of the strategies. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the first to sequentially examine the effects of patient- and clinician-directed strategies informed by behavioral economics on engagement with breast and ovarian cancer genetic testing. The pragmatic and sequential design will facilitate a large and diverse patient sample, allow for the assessment of incremental gains from different implementation strategies, and permit the assessment of moderators of strategy effectiveness. The findings may help determine the impact of low-cost, highly transportable implementation strategies that can be integrated into healthcare systems to improve the use of genomic medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05721326. Registered February 10, 2023. https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT05721326.

Sustainability, spread, and scale in trials using audit and feedback: a theory-informed, secondary analysis of a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy to influence health professionals' behavior that is often tested in implementation trials. This study examines how A&F trials describe sustainability, spread, and scale. METHODS: This is a theory-informed, descriptive, secondary analysis of an update of the Cochrane systematic review of A&F trials, including all trials published since 2011. Keyword searches related to sustainability, spread, and scale were conducted. Trials with at least one keyword, and those identified from a forward citation search, were extracted to examine how they described sustainability, spread, and scale. Results were qualitatively analyzed using the Integrated Sustainability Framework (ISF) and the Framework for Going to Full Scale (FGFS). RESULTS: From the larger review, n = 161 studies met eligibility criteria. Seventy-eight percent (n = 126) of trials included at least one keyword on sustainability, and 49% (n = 62) of those studies (39% overall) frequently mentioned sustainability based on inclusion of relevant text in multiple sections of the paper. For spread/scale, 62% (n = 100) of trials included at least one relevant keyword and 51% (n = 51) of those studies (31% overall) frequently mentioned spread/scale. A total of n = 38 studies from the forward citation search were included in the qualitative analysis. Although many studies mentioned the need to consider sustainability, there was limited detail on how this was planned, implemented, or assessed. The most frequent sustainability period duration was 12 months. Qualitative results mapped to the ISF, but not all determinants were represented. Strong alignment was found with the FGFS for phases of scale-up and support systems (infrastructure), but not for adoption mechanisms. New spread/scale themes included (1) aligning affordability and scalability; (2) balancing fidelity and scalability; and (3) balancing effect size and scalability. CONCLUSION: A&F trials should plan for sustainability, spread, and scale so that if the trial is effective, the benefits can continue. A deeper empirical understanding of the factors impacting A&F sustainability is needed. Scalability planning should go beyond cost and infrastructure to consider other adoption mechanisms, such as leadership, policy, and communication, that may support further scalability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with Prospero in May 2022. CRD42022332606.

Enhancing Impact: A Call to Action for Equitable Implementation Science.

Despite investments in evidence-based interventions and Implementation Science, most evidence-based interventions are not widely or routinely adopted, delivered, or sustained in many real-world community and healthcare settings. This gap is even greater in settings and populations experiencing numerous social and structural barriers to health, with important implications for persistent patterns in health inequities. In this Viewpoint, as part of a Special Issue on Advancing the Adaptability of Chronic Disease Prevention and Management through Implementation Science, we outline seven calls to action for the field of Implementation Science, with the goal of encouraging researchers, practitioners, and funders to be more intentional and accountable in applying Implementation Science to have greater impact on promoting health equity. Calls to action include (1) enhance public health, community, and multi-sectoral partnerships to promote health equity and equitable implementation; (2) revisit and build the evidence base needed to promote health equity and impact at multiple levels; (3) prioritize focus on policy development, dissemination, and implementation; (4) be agile and responsive in application of Implementation Science frameworks, processes, and methods; (5) identify and redefine meaningful metrics for equity and impact; (6) disseminate scientific evidence and research to a diverse range of partners and potential beneficiaries; and (7) extend focus on de-implementation, mis-implementation, and sustainability which are central to enhancing health equity. Additionally, we outline why a focus on prevention and public health is essential to making progress towards health equity in Implementation Science, summarize important advancements that the field has made towards making equity more foundational, and pose important research questions to enhance equitable impact of work in this area.

Making the connection between health equity and sustainability.

Sustainability and health inequities are key challenges in public health and healthcare. Research suggests that only about half of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) are sustained over time, and settings and populations experiencing systemic and structural barriers to health (e.g., poverty, racism, stigma, and discrimination) experience even greater challenges to sustainability. In this article, we argue that an enhanced focus on sustainability in the field of implementation science is critical in order to maximize the long-term health benefits and broader societal impacts of EBIs for all populations and settings. From an equity perspective, a focus on sustainability is particularly critical to prioritize among population sub-groups that have not historically received the benefits of health-related EBIs. We discuss how a health equity framing is essential to sustaining EBIs in under-resourced communities, and requires moving away from a deficit mindset that focuses on why EBIs are challenging to sustain, to one that focuses more on identifying and nurturing existing assets within individuals and communities to increase the likelihood that EBIs are sustained. We conclude with a discussion of future directions as well as recommendations and resources (e.g., frameworks, tools) to advance and make progress toward sustainability from a health equity mindset, including: (1) Actively planning early for sustainability alongside key partners; (2) Tracking progress toward enhancing sustainability and being accountable in doing so equitably for all settings and populations; and (3) Focusing on both equity and engagement early and often throughout the research process and all implementation phases.

A systematic review to determine the effect of strategies to sustain chronic disease prevention interventions in clinical and community settings: study protocol.

Background: The primary purpose of this review is to synthesise the effect of strategies aiming to sustain the implementation of evidenced based interventions (EBIs) targeting key health behaviours associated with chronic disease (i.e., physical inactivity, poor diet, harmful alcohol use and tobacco smoking) in clinical and community settings. The field of implementation science is bereft of an evidence base of effective sustainment strategies, and as such this review will provide important evidence to advance the field of sustainability research. Methods: This systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) checklist (Additional file 1). Methods will follow Cochrane gold-standard review methodology. The search will be undertaken across multiple databases, adapting filters previously developed by the research team; data screening and extraction will be performed in duplicate; strategies will be coded using an adapted sustainability-explicit taxonomy; evidence will be synthesised using appropriate methods (i.e. meta-analytic following Cochrane or non-meta-analytic following SWiM guidelines). We will include any randomised controlled study that targets any staff or volunteers delivering interventions in clinical or community settings. Studies which report on any objective or subjective measure of the sustainment of a health prevention policy, practice, or program within any of the eligible settings will be included. Article screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment will be performed independently by two review authors. Risk of bias will be assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). A random effect meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the pooled effect of sustainment strategies separately by setting (i.e. clinical and community). Sub-group analyses will be undertaken to explore possible causes of statistical heterogeneity and may include: time period, single or multi strategy, type of setting and type of intervention. Differences between sub-groups will be statistically compared. Discussion/Conclusion: This will be the first systematic review to determine the effect of strategies designed to support sustainment on sustaining the implementation of EBIs in clinical and community settings. The findings of this review will directly inform the design of future sustainability-focused implementation trials. Further, these findings will inform the development of a sustainability practice guide for public health practitioners. Registration: This review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022352333).

Applying User-Centered Design and Implementation Science to the Early-Stage Development of a Telehealth-Enhanced Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Quality Improvement Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an evidence-based intervention that improves event-free survival in patients with cardiac conditions, yet <27% of all eligible patients use CR in the United States. CR is traditionally delivered in clinic-based settings where implementation barriers abound. Innovative nontraditional program designs and strategies are needed to support widespread CR uptake. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate how user-centered design (UCD) and implementation science (IS) principles and methods can be integrated into the early-stage development of nontraditional CR interventions. METHODS: As part of a NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital (NYPH) quality improvement initiative (March 2020-February 2022), we combined UCD and IS principles and methods to design a novel home- and clinic-based telehealth-enhanced hybrid CR (THCR) program. We co-designed this program with multilevel stakeholders using an iterative 3-step UCD process to identify user and contextual barriers and facilitators to CR uptake (using semistructured interviews and contextual inquiry [step 1]), design an intervention prototype that targets contextual and user factors and emulates the evidence-based practice (through design workshops and journey mapping [step 2]), and review and refine the prototype (according to real-world usability testing and feedback [step 3]). The UCD process was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: At step 1, we conducted semistructured interviews with 9 provider- and system-level stakeholders (female: n=6, 67%) at 3 geographically diverse academic medical centers, which revealed behavioral (eg, self-efficacy and knowledge) and contextual (eg, social distancing guidelines, physical space, staffing, and reimbursement) barriers to uptake; hybrid delivery was a key facilitator. Step 2 involved conducting 20 design workshops and 3 journey-mapping sessions with multidisciplinary NYPH stakeholders (eg, digital health team, CR clinicians, and creative director) where we identified key design elements (eg, mix of clinic- and home-based CR and synchronous remote patient monitoring), yielding an initial THCR prototype that leveraged NYPH's telehealth infrastructure. At step 3, we conducted usability testing with 2 CR clinicians (both female) administering home-based sessions to 3 CR patients (female: n=1, 33%), which revealed usability themes (eg, ease of using remote patient monitoring devices or a telehealth platform, technology disruptions, and confidence in using the telehealth platform to safely monitor patients) and design solutions (eg, onboarding sessions, safety surveys, and fully supervised remote sessions) to be included in the final THCR prototype. CONCLUSIONS: Combining UCD and IS methods while engaging multidisciplinary stakeholders in an iterative process yielded a theory-informed THCR program targeting user and contextual barriers to real-world CR implementation. We provide a detailed summary of the process and guidance for incorporating UCD and IS principles and methods into the early-stage development of a nontraditional CR intervention. The feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and usability of the final THCR prototype is being evaluated in an ongoing study.

Cluster Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial Testing Behavioral Economic Implementation Strategies to Improve Tobacco Treatment for Patients With Cancer Who Smoke.

PURPOSE: Few cancer centers systematically engage patients with evidence-based tobacco treatment despite its positive effect on quality of life and survival. Implementation strategies directed at patients, clinicians, or both may increase tobacco use treatment (TUT) within oncology. METHODS: We conducted a four-arm cluster-randomized pragmatic trial across 11 clinical sites comparing the effect of strategies informed by behavioral economics on TUT engagement during oncology encounters with cancer patients. We delivered electronic health record (EHR)-based nudges promoting TUT across four nudge conditions: patient only, clinician only, patient and clinician, or usual care. Nudges were designed to counteract cognitive biases that reduce TUT engagement. The primary outcome was TUT penetration, defined as the proportion of patients with documented TUT referral or a medication prescription in the EHR. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the parameters of a linear model. RESULTS: From June 2021 to July 2022, we randomly assigned 246 clinicians in 95 clusters, and collected TUT penetration data from their encounters with 2,146 eligible patients who smoke receiving oncologic care. Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed that the clinician nudge led to a significant increase in TUT penetration versus usual care (35.6% v 13.5%; OR = 3.64; 95% CI, 2.52 to 5.24; P < .0001). Completer-only analysis (N = 1,795) showed similar impact (37.7% clinician nudge v 13.5% usual care; OR = 3.77; 95% CI, 2.73 to 5.19; P < .0001). Clinician type affected TUT penetration, with physicians less likely to provide TUT than advanced practice providers (ITT OR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.88; P = .004). CONCLUSION: EHR nudges, informed by behavioral economics and aimed at oncology clinicians, appear to substantially increase TUT penetration. Adding patient nudges to the implementation strategy did not affect TUT penetration rates.

Application of The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to inform understanding of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of opioid and naloxone training on college campuses.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the US continues to worsen. Opioid-only and polysubstance-involved opioid overdose deaths are increasing among adolescents and young adults, who have limited knowledge of opioid overdose prevention, including recognition and response. College campuses have infrastructure to support national-level implementation of evidence-based public health strategies for providing opioid overdose prevention and naloxone training programs among this priority population. However, college campuses are an underutilized, understudied setting for this programming. To address this gap, we conducted research assessing barriers and facilitators to planning and implementing this programming on college campuses. METHODS: We held 9 focus groups among purposively selected campus stakeholders whose perceptions were important to understand in planning for the dissemination and implementation of opioid overdose prevention and naloxone training. Focus group scripts were informed by The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to query about perceptions of opioid and other substance use, opioid and other substance use-related resources, and naloxone administration training. We used a deductive-inductive, iterative approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Themes about implementation barriers included (1) the perception that problematic use of other (non-opioid) substances was more prevalent than opioid use on campus and focus on those substances would be a greater priority on college campuses; (2) student schedules were overwhelmed with academic commitments and extracurricular activities, making delivery of additional training challenging; (3) barriers related to the perceived complexity and decentralization of communication on campus, preventing students from knowing how to access substance use-related resources. Themes about implementation facilitators included (1) framing naloxone training as important in becoming a responsible leader on campus and in the broader community and (2) leveraging existing infrastructure, champions within existing campus groups, and tailored messaging to facilitate participation in naloxone training. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide in-depth insights into potential barriers and facilitators to widespread, routine implementation of naloxone/opioid education on undergraduate college campuses. The study captured diverse stakeholder perspectives and was theoretically grounded in CFIR, contributing to the growing literature on the application and refinement of CFIR across diverse community and school contexts.