Tailoring dissemination of evidence to preferences of tobacco control partners: results from an academic-community partnership.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control program leaders and their partners, who often present evidence to policymakers, can increase the use of evidence in program and policy development. However, up-to-date evidence from the scientific community about what works is slow to reach leaders. We describe efforts to understand and utilize tobacco control leaders' preferences for receiving evidence and report on resulting dissemination strategies, translational products, and outcomes. METHODS: This work is part of the Advancing Science and Practice in the Retail Environment (ASPiRE) Center, an interdisciplinary research center focused on understanding and evaluating tobacco retail policy. Participants were members of the ASPiRE Community Advisory Board (CAB), comprised of tobacco control leaders from 30 metropolitan areas representing all regions of the US plus nine representatives from leading national tobacco control organizations (N = 39). During meetings in February 2019 and October 2020, all CAB members were invited to participate in live polls consisting of six survey questions each. Questions addressed preferences for receiving scientific evidence and their anticipated use of ASPiRE translational products. Responses were analyzed descriptively and informed translational product development and communications with ASPiRE contact list members (N = 125). ASPiRE email and website interactions were tracked from March 2019 to May 2021 as a complementary indication of content use. RESULTS: Response rates for 2019 and 2020 CAB meetings were 66% (n = 26) and 59% (n = 23), respectively. CAB members indicated preferences for email communication (33%) and webinars (31%), communications once per month (46%), and short-format documents (28%). In response, the team developed translational short-format products including case studies, fact sheets, and research briefs. On average, 52% (SD = 14%) of recipients opened the newsletter and 17% (SD = 9%) clicked a link within the newsletter. Overall, 95% of responding CAB members found the products useful and all responding CAB members reported using them to communicate evidence to policymakers, staff, and coalition members. CONCLUSIONS: Our successful dissemination approach to making evidence more accessible and useable for tobacco control leaders could be adapted by researchers working with community partners to assess and respond to stakeholders' preferences for receiving evidence in other areas of health policy.

Research to Translation: The Healthy Schools Toolkit and New Approaches to the Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child Model.

BACKGROUND: The Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child (WSCC) model is an evidence-based comprehensive framework to address health in schools. WSCC model use improves health and educational outcomes, but implementation remains a challenge. METHODS: Working with 6 schools in 2 districts in the Midwest, we used a mixed-methods approach to determine the people, systems, and messages needed to activate WSCC implementation. We report on social network analysis and message testing findings and research translation to develop the Healthy Schools Toolkit. RESULTS: Social networks for both districts included more than 150 individuals. Both demonstrated network densities less than half of the desirable threshold, with evidence of clustering by role and minimal cross-school relationships, posing challenges for WSCC implementation. Across stakeholder groups, messages that emphasize empathy, teamwork, and action were well-received, especially when shared by trusted individuals through communication channels that align with stakeholder needs. CONCLUSIONS: The Healthy Schools Toolkit provides an example of a translational product that helps to bridge research with practice. With features that highlight 6 design principles, the toolkit provides complementary activities that schools and districts can use as they plan for integration of the WSCC model.

Client Perspectives on Health Coaching: Insight for Improved Program Design.

Objective: In this paper, we examine client perspectives of health coaching programs and differences by insurance type. Methods: We used descriptive coding and directed content analysis to analyze semi-structured qualitative in-person interviews that assessed preferred health coach qualifications and experience, desirable attributes for coaches, and interest in having a coach. We recruited participants (N = 140 adults: 61 commercial insurance, 79 Medicaid) without consideration of prior health coaching experience. Results: Participants viewed physicians as the experts on health and valued coaches as supporters of behavior-change efforts that could take a patient's life context into account. Empathetic coaches were expected to motivate and hold patients accountable without taking too much time or being too "pushy." Participants preferred some in-person interaction and differed in preferences for program referral and enrollment approaches. Medicaid beneficiaries had less prior exposure to health coaching, more interest in having a coach, and preferred coaches to provide medical education. Conclusions: Irrespective of prior coaching experience or insurance type, participants agreed on many preferred characteristics of coaches and coaching programs. Understanding client preferences and expectations can help refine the role of health coaches, making them more effective and shaping the way they are presented to potential participants to enhance their appeal and use.

What can health communication science offer for ACA implementation? Five evidence-informed strategies for expanding Medicaid enrollment.

CONTEXT: Implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2014 will require effective enrollment and outreach efforts to previously uninsured individuals now eligible for coverage. METHODS: From 1996 to 2013, the Health Communication Research Laboratory conducted more than 40 original studies with more than 30,000 participants to learn how to improve the reach to and effectiveness of health information for low-income and racial/ethnic minority populations. We synthesized the findings from this body of research and used them to inform current challenges in implementing the ACA. FINDINGS: We found empirical support for 5 recommendations regarding partnerships, outreach, messages and messengers, life priorities of low-income individuals and families, and the information environment. We translated these into 12 action steps. CONCLUSIONS: Health communication science can inform the development and execution of strategies to increase the public's understanding of the ACA and to support the enrollment of eligible individuals into Medicaid or the Health Insurance Marketplace.

Small media and client reminders for colorectal cancer screening: current use and gap areas in CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program.

INTRODUCTION: CDC's Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) funds 25 states and 4 tribal organizations to promote and increase colorectal cancer screening population-wide. The CRCCP grantees must use evidence-based strategies from the Guide to Community Preventive Services, including small media and client reminders. METHODS: To assess the existing resources and needs to promote colorectal cancer screening, we conducted 2 web-based surveys of CRCCP grantees and their community partners. Survey 1 sought to identify priority populations, the number and quality of existing colorectal cancer resources for different population subgroups, and the types of small media and client reminder they were most interested in using. Survey 2 assessed screening messages that were used in the past or might be used in the future, needs for non-English-language information, and preferences for screening-related terminology. RESULTS: In survey 1 (n = 125 from 26 CRCCPs), most respondents (83%) indicated they currently had some information resources for promoting screening but were widely dissatisfied with the quality and number of these resources. They reported the greatest need for resources targeting rural populations (62% of respondents), men (53%), and Hispanics (45%). In survey 2 (n = 57 from 25 CRCCPs), respondents indicated they were most likely to promote colorectal cancer screening using messages that emphasized family (95%), role models (85%), or busy lives (83%), and least likely to use messages based on faith (26%), embarrassment (25%), or fear (22%). Nearly all (85%) indicated a need for resources in languages other than English; 16 different languages were mentioned, most commonly Spanish. CONCLUSION: These findings provide the first picture of CRCCP information resources and interests, and point to specific gaps that must be addressed to help increase screening.