Improving Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Prevention from the Bottom-up: a Pilot of Getting To Outcomes in the US Military.

While the Department of Defense (DoD) has given increased attention and priority to preventing sexual assault and sexual harassment (SA/SH), it remains a problem. To build its prevention capacity, DoD piloted Getting To Outcomes® (GTO®) from 2019 to 2022 at 10 military installations. GTO is an evidence-based planning and implementation support that has been used in many civilian contexts but has only recently been adapted for military SA/SH. The purpose of this study was to describe GTO use, identify its benefits and challenges, and discuss lessons the GTO effort yielded for prevention more broadly using a framework of organizational and program-level capacities needed for successful prevention in the military context, called the Prevention Evaluation Framework (PEF). GTO was piloted with 10 military installations ("sites") representing all Military Services, plus the Coast Guard and National Guard. GTO is comprised of a written guide, training, and ongoing coaching. The pilot's goal was for each site to use GTO to implement a SA/SH prevention program twice. Participants from each site were interviewed and data was collected on GTO steps completed, whether GTO spurred new evaluation activities and collaborations, and the degree of leadership support for GTO. Most sites completed all GTO steps at least once. Interviews showed that DoD participants believe GTO improved prevention understanding, planning, and evaluation capacity; strengthened confidence in chosen programs; and helped sites tailor programs to the military context. Barriers were the complexity of GTO, DoD personnel turnover, and the disruption that the COVID pandemic caused in sexual assault prevention program delivery. Many respondents were unsure if they would continue all of GTO after the coaching ended, but many believed they would continue at least some parts. According to the PEF, the GTO pilot revealed several additional prevention system gaps (e.g., need for leadership support) and changes needed to GTO (e.g., stronger leader and champion engagement), to support quality prevention. The military and other large organizations will need to focus on these issues to ensure prevention implementation and evaluation are conducted with quality.

Using Implementation Mapping to Build Organizational Readiness.

Organizational readiness is essential for high-quality implementation of innovations (programs, policies, practices, or processes). The R = MC2 heuristic describes three readiness components necessary for implementation-the general functioning of the organization (general capacities), the ability to deliver a particular innovation (innovation-specific capacities), and the motivation to implement the innovation. In this article, we describe how we used the Readiness Building System (RBS) for assessing, prioritizing, and improving readiness and Implementation Mapping (IM), a systematic process for planning implementation strategies, to build organizational readiness for implementation of sexual assault prevention evidence-based interventions (EBIs). While RBS provides an overarching approach for assessing and prioritizing readiness constructs (according to the R = MC2 heuristic; Readiness = Motivation x general Capacity × innovation specific Capacity), it does not provide specific guidance on the development and/or selection and tailoring of strategies to improve readiness. We used the five IM tasks to identify and prioritize specific readiness goals and develop readiness-building strategies to improve subcomponents described in the R = MC2 heuristic. This article illustrates how IM can be used synergistically with the RBS in applied contexts to plan implementation strategies that will improve organizational readiness and implementation outcomes. Specifically, we provide an example of using these two frameworks as part of the process of building organizational readiness for implementation of sexual assault prevention EBIs.

R = MC2 readiness building process: A practical approach to support implementation in local, state, and national settings.

Effective implementation of evidence-based interventions is a persistent challenge across community settings. Organizational readiness - or, the motivation and collective capacity of an entity to adopt and sustain an innovation - is important to facilitate implementation. Drawing on the R = MC2 readiness framework, we developed a readiness building process to tailor support for implementation. The process is composed of the following stages: assessment, feedback and prioritization, and strategize. In this article, we describe the application of the readiness building process through three case examples representing interventions at different ecological levels: local, state, and national. The case examples illuminate challenges and practical considerations for using the readiness building process, including the significance of on-going leadership engagement and collaboration between support system and delivery system staff. To further the research and practice of implementation readiness, we suggest examining the impact of readiness building on implementation outcomes and developing an empirically-informed repository of change management strategies matched to readiness constructs.

Animal-derived medications: cultural considerations and available alternatives.

CONTEXT: Cultural competency is a cornerstone of patient-centered health care. Religious doctrines may define appropriate consumption or use of certain animals and forbid use of others. Many medications contain ingredients that are animal-derived; these medications may be unacceptable to individual patients within the context of their religious beliefs and lifestyle choices. Knowledge of animal-derived medications as a component of cultural competency can facilitate a dialogue that shifts focus from the group to the individual, away from cultural competency toward cultural humility, and away from a paternalistic provider/patient dynamic toward one of partnership. OBJECTIVES: To explore how animal-derived drug components may impact medication selection and acceptability from the perspective of patients, physicians, and religious leaders as evidenced by studies that explore the question via survey or questionnaire. A secondary objective is to use the context of animal-derived drug products as a component of cultural competency to build a framework supporting the development of cultural humility. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases using combinations of the following terms: "medication selection," "medication," "adherence," "pharmaceutical preparations," "religion and medicine," "religion," "animal," "dietary," "porcine," and "bovine." Studies that reported using surveys or questionnaires to examine patient, physician, or religious leader perspective on animal-derived medications published in English between 1990 and 2020 were included. Review articles, opinion pieces, case reports, surveys of persons other than patients, religious leaders, or physicians, and studies published in languages other than English were excluded. Three authors independently reviewed articles to extract information pertaining to perspectives on animal-based medication ingredients. RESULTS: Eight studies meeting the described criteria were found that queried beliefs or knowledge of patients, religious leaders, or physicians regarding medications and medical products of biologic origin. Those studies are described in full in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of animal-derived ingredients may help open conversations with patients around spiritual history and cultural competency, particularly for those patients belonging to religious sects with doctrines that define appropriate use of human- or animal-derived products. Further formal study is needed to explore more fully the extent to which religious beliefs may impact selection of animal- or human-derived medications. Guidelines developed from this knowledge may aid in identifying individual patients with whom the discussion may be particularly relevant. More studies are needed to quantify and qualify beliefs regarding animal-derived medication constituents.

Medical utilization surrounding initial opioid-related diagnoses by coding method.

OBJECTIVES: To identify methods for coding initial opioid-related disorder (ORD) diagnoses in administrative claims and determine whether coding methods correspond to acute medical utilization patterns. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Blue Health Intelligence commercial data. METHODS: We included members with 2 years of continuous coverage around the first appearance of an ORD diagnosis code (initial ORD) in medical or pharmacy claims with dates of service between October 2015 and March 2016. Initial ORD was identified by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) F11 codes or buprenorphine for medication-assisted treatment (BUP-MAT) with a duration of 3 or more days. Descriptive analyses were evaluated prediagnosis, in the month of diagnosis, and post diagnosis and included mean cost per member per month (PMPM); mean monthly percentage of members with at least 1 opioid agonist prescription (OAP), inpatient visit, or emergency department (ED) visit; and percentage of members with at least 1 ICD-10-CM Z79.891 code (long-term [current] use of opiate analgesic). RESULTS: A total of 6426 initial ORD diagnoses were identified by F11.20 (65.2%), F11.x (28.7%), and BUP-MAT (6.1%). PMPM costs for BUP-MAT ($2054) were lower than for F11.20 ($5053) and F11.x ($6597) in the diagnosis month. Mean monthly percentage of members with at least 1 OAP declined from pre- to post initial ORD diagnosis (F11.20, 52.5% to 50.0%; F11.x, 44.1% to 37.9%; BUP-MAT, 34.0% to 12.7%). Members with initial ORD coded as F11.x had the highest mean percentage with at least 1 inpatient or ED visit in the diagnosis month (30.9% and 26.8%, respectively) versus F11.20 (19.3% and 10.8%) and BUP-MAT (5.1% and 3.5%). Percentage of members with at least 1 Z79.891 code was higher post diagnosis than in the month of diagnosis (F11.20, 34.6% vs 25.7%; F11.x, 16.5% vs 8.1%; BUP-MAT, 19.5% vs 8.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Medical utilization patterns of members with ORD differ by the coding method used to document their initial diagnosis in administrative claims.

Identifying Levorphanol Ingestion Using Urine Biomarkers in Health Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Levorphanol is a long-acting opioid analgesic that is an optical isomer of dextrorphan, a metabolite of the over-the-counter cough suppressant dextromethorphan. Providers prescribing levorphanol for pain management may need to assess compliance through urine drug testing, as this agent is subject to abuse. Therefore, it is important to differentiate between dextromethorphan and levorphanol ingestion. OBJECTIVES: This article is the first to report urine concentrations of levorphanol/dextrorphan and 3-hydroxymorphinan in human urine and assesses the need for an enantiomeric analysis to distinguish between dextromethorphan and levorphanol ingestion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective data review. METHODS: Medication compliance test results were reviewed for 521 urine samples submitted to Aegis Sciences Corporation between July 2014 and July 2016. Samples were included in this analysis if dextromethorphan or levorphanol testing was requested by the ordering provider. Urine samples were hydrolyzed with beta-glucuronidase and analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). An enantiomeric analysis to distinguish levorphanol from dextrorphan and (-)-3-hydroxymorphinan (norlevorphanol) from (+)-3-hydroxymorphinan was not performed. RESULTS: Nineteen urine samples with levorphanol listed as prescribed had median levorphanol/dextrorphan and 3-hydroxymorphinan concentrations of 1,881 ng/mL and 141 ng/mL, respectively. One-quarter of the urine samples with dextromethorphan listed as prescribed did not have any detectable dextromethorphan or 3-methoxymorphinan. LIMITATIONS: An enantiomeric analysis was not utilized with the LC-MS/MS testing method; therefore, levorphanol could not be differentiated from dextrorphan, and (-)-3-hydroxymorphinan could not be differentiated from (+)-3-hydroxymorphinan. The hepatic and renal function for these patients was unknown; however, both could impact the metabolism, distribution, and excretion of levorphanol biomarkers in urine. The dextromethorphan and/or levorphanol dose and timing of last ingestion was also not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: It may be impossible to distinguish between levorphanol and dextromethorphan ingestion based on urine biomarkers, unless dextromethorphan or 3-methoxymorphinan is present or an enantiomeric analysis is performed. Therefore, the potential exists for patients prescribed levorphanol to ingest dextromethorphan and appear compliant with levorphanol therapy. This should prompt clinicians to consider the parameters of their laboratory's testing method when interpreting levorphanol drug test results. KEY WORDS: Levorphanol, dextrorphan, dextromethorphan, 3-hydroxymorphinan, urine testing, urine concentration, drug testing, medication compliance testing.