Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol: a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, type 1 hybrid effectiveness study to assess implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored harm reduction kiosk on HIV, HCV and overdose risk in rural Appalachia.

INTRODUCTION: Many rural communities bear a disproportionate share of drug-related harms. Innovative harm reduction service models, such as vending machines or kiosks, can expand access to services that reduce drug-related harms. However, few kiosks operate in the USA, and their implementation, impact and cost-effectiveness have not been adequately evaluated in rural settings. This paper describes the Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol to test the effectiveness, implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored, harm reduction kiosk in reducing HIV, hepatitis C and overdose risk in rural Appalachia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: KyOSK is a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, non-randomised trial. KyOSK involves two cohorts of people who use drugs, one in an intervention county (n=425) and one in a control county (n=325). People who are 18 years or older, are community-dwelling residents in the target counties and have used drugs to get high in the past 6 months are eligible. The trial compares the effectiveness of a fixed-site, staffed syringe service programme (standard of care) with the standard of care supplemented with a kiosk. The kiosk will contain various harm reduction supplies accessible to participants upon valid code entry, allowing dispensing data to be linked to participant survey data. The kiosk will include a call-back feature that allows participants to select needed services and receive linkage-to-care services from a peer recovery coach. The cohorts complete follow-up surveys every 6 months for 36 months (three preceding kiosk implementation and four post-implementation). The study will test the effectiveness of the kiosk on reducing risk behaviours associated with overdose, HIV and hepatitis C, as well as implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approved the protocol. Results will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and community meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05657106.

Evaluation of Patient Needs and Patient Navigator Communication about Cervical Cancer Prevention in Appalachian Kentucky.

Few studies describe the way patient navigation processes may address disparities in treatment and follow-up care for medically underserved populations. Using a social ecological framework, we analyzed survey assessments of 519 patients completing a randomized navigation trial in Appalachia Kentucky to examine patient-reported barriers to follow-up cervical cancer care. We also analyzed in-depth interview transcripts with four lay patient navigators in the trial to identify barriers to follow-up care and to learn what communication strategies navigators use to successfully (or unsuccessfully) help patients navigate around those barriers. Our analysis provides insight into how patient navigation may improve adherence to follow-up care through assisted uncertainty management. We also discuss opportunities for improving navigator training to address disparities in clinical outcomes.

Seeking health advice from social networks in low-income urban neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how individuals residing in low-income neighborhoods use their social networks for health advice. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of 363 individuals living in low-income neighborhoods was conducted using social network analysis and logistic regression techniques. RESULTS: Findings suggest that residents typically seek health advice from one or 2 friends and family members rather than a health professional. Age and family history of illness increased the likelihood that one would seek support whereas the combination of anxiety and depression decreased advice seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for multidisciplinary strategies for disseminating health information through informal social networks.

Engaging partners to initiate evaluation efforts: tactics used and lessons learned from the prevention research centers program.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) Program underwent a 2-year evaluation planning project using a participatory process that allowed perspectives from the national community of PRC partners to be expressed and reflected in a national logic model. CONTEXT: The PRC Program recognized the challenge in developing a feasible, useable, and relevant evaluation process for a large, diverse program. To address the challenge, participatory and utilization-focused evaluation models were used. METHODS: Four tactics guided the evaluation planning process: 1) assessing stakeholders' communication needs and existing communication mechanisms and infrastructure; 2) using existing mechanisms and establishing others as needed to inform, educate, and request feedback; 3) listening to and using feedback received; and 4) obtaining adequate resources and building flexibility into the project plan to support multifaceted mechanisms for data collection. CONSEQUENCES: Participatory methods resulted in buy-in from stakeholders and the development of a national logic model. Benefits included CDC's use of the logic model for program planning and development of a national evaluation protocol and increased expectations among PRC partners for involvement. Challenges included the time, effort, and investment of program resources required for the participatory approach and the identification of whom to engage and when to engage them for feedback on project decisions. INTERPRETATION: By using a participatory and utilization-focused model, program partners positively influenced how CDC developed an evaluation plan. The tactics we used can guide the involvement of program stakeholders and help with decisions on appropriate methods and approaches for engaging partners.