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.

The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control.

BACKGROUND: Mentored training approaches help build capacity for research through mentoring networks and skill building activities. Capacity for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in cancer is needed and mentored training programs have been developed. Evaluation of mentored training programs through quantitative approaches often provides us with information on "what" improved for participants. Qualitative approaches provide a deeper understanding of "how" programs work best. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 fellows of the National Cancer Institute-funded Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation in Cancer to gain understanding of their experiences with mentoring received during the program. Fellows were selected from all 55 trained participants based upon their gain in D&I research skills (highest and lowest) and number of collaborative connections in the program network (highest and lowest) reported in previous quantitative surveys. Phone interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis. Codes were developed a priori to reflect interview guide concepts followed by further development and iterative coding of three common themes that emerged: 1) program and mentoring structure, 2) importance of mentor attributes, and 3) enhanced capacity: credentials, confidence, credibility and connections. RESULTS: Interviews provided valuable information about program components that worked best and impacts attributed to participation in the program. Fellows reported that regular monthly check-in calls with mentors helped to keep their research moving forward and that group mentoring structures aided in their learning of basic D&I research concepts and their application. Accessible, responsive, and knowledgeable mentors were commonly mentioned by fellows as a key to their success in the program. Fellows mentioned various forms of impact that they attributed to their participation in the program including gaining credibility in the field, a network of peers and experts, and career developments (e.g., collaborative publications and grant funding). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mentored training works best when mentoring is structured and coupled with applied learning and when respected and dedicated mentors are on board. Increased scientific collaborations and credibility within a recognized network are important trainee experiences that should be considered when designing, implementing, and sustaining mentored training programs.

Mentored training and its association with dissemination and implementation research output: a quasi-experimental evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is a continued need to evaluate training programs in dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. Scientific products yielded from trainees are an important and objective measure to understand the capacity growth within the D&I field. This study evaluates our mentored training program in terms of scientific productivity among applicants. METHODS: Post-doctoral and early-career cancer researchers were recruited and applied to the R25 Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) between 2014 and 2017. Using application details and publicly available bibliometric and funding data, we compared selected fellows with unsuccessful applicants (nonfellows). We extracted Scopus citations and US federal grant funding records for all applicants (N = 102). Funding and publication abstracts were de-identified and coded for D&I focus and aggregated to the applicant level for analysis. Logistic regression models were explored separately for the odds of (1) a D&I publication and (2) US federal grant funding post year of application among fellows (N = 55) and nonfellows (N = 47). Additional models were constructed to include independent variables that attenuated the program's association by 5% or more. Only US-based applicants (N = 87) were included in the grant funding analysis. RESULTS: Fellows and nonfellows were similar across several demographic characteristics. Fellows were more than 3 times more likely than nonfellows to have grant funding after MT-DIRC application year (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.1-11.0) while controlling for time since application year; the association estimate was 3.1 (95% CI 0.98-11.0) after adjusting for both cancer research area and previous grant funding. For publications, fellows were almost 4 times more likely to publish D&I-focused work adjusting for time (OR 3.8; 95% CI 1.7-9.0). This association lessened after adjusting for previous D&I publication and years since undergraduate degree (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.2-7.5). CONCLUSIONS: We document the association of a mentored training approach with built-in networks of peers to yield productive D&I researchers. Future evaluation efforts could be expanded to include other forms of longer-term productivity such as policy or practice change as additional objective measures. D&I research trainings in the USA and internationally should consider common evaluation measures.